Allowed

Devaraja v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2021CRL.P/6446/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. sought bail for the petitioner accused in a murder case involving circumstantial evidence where no eyewitnesses existed. The High Court allowed bail subject to a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on obtaining bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties subject to conditions not committing offences, tampering with witnesses, and appearing as required.

Devaraja Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6446 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

DEVARAJA, S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENT OF ELECHAGANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A.V.GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HOLENARASIPURA RURAL POLICE, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.9/2021 (CR.NO.84/2020) OF HOLENARASIPURA RURAL P.S., HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE

¶16

¶17

P/U/S 120B, 342, 302, 201 READ WITH 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT HASSAN.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner - accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.84/2020 of Holenarasipura Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 342, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant - Mallige.

¶21

Heard Sri. A.V.Gangadharappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.S.Abhijith, learned Counsel for the respondent - State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without

¶23

¶24

any basis. He was apprehended on 09.10.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident but the prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. The matter is pending in S.C.No.9/2021 before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan for hearing before charge. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. The trial in the matter will take sufficiently long period. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pretrial punishment. The petitioner 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.

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though there are no eyewitnesses to the incident, CW.3 stated regarding the

¶26

¶27

deceased abusing accused No.1. CW.2 had last seen the deceased in the company of accused No.1. CWs.4 and 5 found the injured by the side of the road and on enquiry, they were informed by the injured that it was accused Nos.1 and 2, who have assaulted him. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Now the matter is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for bail as he is the main accused. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶28

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶29

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

¶30

for grant of bail under Section 439 of

¶31

Cr.P.C.?”

¶32

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶33

¶34

R E A S O N S

¶35

The materials on record disclose that serious allegations are made against all the accused including the present petitioner. Even though there are no eyewitnesses, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of circumstantial witnesses. It is stated that CW.2 - Son of the deceased had seen that the petitioner was taking the deceased with him and CW.3 had seen the deceased abusing accused No.1. Under such circumstances, at this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. However, admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. It is not the contention of prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation or that he is having any criminal antecedents. Conclusion of trial may take sufficient time. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. Hence, 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.

¶36

¶37

Accordingly, I answer the above point in

¶38

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is allowed.

¶41

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.84/2020 of Holenarasipura Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with

¶42

two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶43

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶44

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶45

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶46

If in case, the petitioner violates any of these conditions, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶47

¶48

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.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

NR/-

Devaraja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devaraja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Jabeer @ Jabeer Vs State of Karnataka

Prabhu @ Bhajanthri Vs State of Karnataka

Sathish Vs State of Karnataka

Saddam Hussen @ Saddam Vs the State of Karnataka

Nayeem Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Raghu Alias Rohith Vs State of Karnataka