High Court of Karnataka granted bail to the petitioner accused in a murder case punishable under Sections 201 and 302 of IPC, subject to specific conditions.
Petitioner enlarged on bail on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions not to commit offences, tamper with witnesses, or abscond.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6249 OF 2021
BETWEEN :
SRINIVAS S/O LATE VENKATARAM AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT KANCHINAKERE VILLAGE HOSA AGRAHARA HOBLI K.R.NAGAR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI: LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SALIGRAMA POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT REP.BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.29/2021 OF SALIGRAMA P.S., MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
O R D E R
The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.29/2021 of Saligrama Police Station, Mysuru District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Arathi.T.
3
registered on the basis of the statement of the mother of the deceased. After postmortem report, the Medical Officer opined that death was due to injuries sustained on the head and chest Thereafter, the FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302 of IPC on the basis of the first information lodged by the mother of the deceased. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Even though CW.2, the mother of the deceased is the informant, she is not an eye-witness to the incident. She states that the deceased used to drink
alcohol, he was having illicit relationship and used to quarrel in the house. Apart from that, she has not stated anything. CW.4 is the neighbor/friend, who said to have been stated that the petitioner demanded Rs.5,000/- from him several days after the incident and he suspected that the petitioner might have caused the death of the deceased. Statements of both these witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate and both pleaded ignorance regarding the death of the deceased and not stated anything about the present
4
petitioner. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. There are no prima-facie materials against the petitioner to constitute the offence. He is not having any criminal antecedents. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though initially, UDR was registered, subsequently, the FIR came to be registered against unknown persons. The conduct of the petitioner enabled CWs.2 and 4 to give statement before the Police, where they have specifically stated that it was the present petitioner, who caused the death of the deceased as he was having illicit relationship with petitioner’s wife and the
5
deceased has not given share to the petitioner in the family property. However, the statements of these witnesses was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein they have not supported the case of the prosecution. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. There are prima-facie materials against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:
6
R E A S O N S
7
any criminal antecedents. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.29/2021 of Saligrama Police Station, Mysuru District, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
8
If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.
Sd/JUDGE
SMJ
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRINIVAS S/O LATE VENKATARAM
STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
