Allowed

Sri. Anand v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Sept 2021CRL.P/6653/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. challenges the bail refusal against the petitioner, accused No.7 of a murder case. The High Court granted bail, noting while the petitioner was implicated in sinister activities like keeping watch and harboring accused, he did not inflict injuries, and the investigation was complete.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.227/2021 on furnishing a bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties and complying with conditions.

Sri. Anand Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6653 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI. ANAND S/O LAKSHMINARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT 52, 80 FEET ROAD GEDDALAHALLI GUNDU TOPU R.M.G 2^ND STAGE, SANJAYANAGARA BANGALORE-560094

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI DEENABANDHU RAI.N: ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT NOW REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560001

¶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 CR.NO.227/2021 OF MADANAYAKANAHALLY P.S., BENGALURU DISTRICT, PENDING IN S.C.NO.182/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, NELAMANGALA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120(B), 143, 147, 148 341, 447, 504, 506, 302 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.7 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.227/2021 of Madanayakanahally Police Station, Bengaluru rural district, pending in S.C.No.182/2021 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148 341, 447, 504, 506, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant-Niranjan K.S.

¶20

Heard Sri Deenabandhu Rai.N, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶22

that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.7. He is

¶23

¶24

innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 28.04.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. The son of the deceased lodged the first information stating that the deceased and accused Nos.1 to 4 were having civil disputes with regard to the landed properties. On 21.04.2021, accused No.1 along with 3 others, came and criminally intimidated the deceased that he will bring JCB and demolish the compound wall. On 22.04.2021, accused Nos.1 to 4 came and assaulted the deceased with machete, knives etc., and caused injuries. But even as per the informant, the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence nor he assaulted the deceased. The petitioner is no way related either to the informant or to accused Nos.1 to 4. The investigation has been under taken and only the phone belonging to accused No.7 was recovered from him. The charge sheet is filed after investigation. Even as per the charge sheet, the petitioner was not at the scene of occurrence nor he committed any specific overt-act as

¶25

¶26

alleged. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. Since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. 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.

¶27

Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶28

Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though, there was dispute with deceased and accused Nos.1 to 4, present petitioner being accused No.5, played an important role. On 21.04.2021, even the petitioner had gone along with accused No.1, threatened the deceased that they will bring JCB and demolish the compound wall. On the date of incident, even though accused Nos.1 to 4 are the assailants who inflicted the fatal injuries, accused No.5 was

¶29

¶30

keeping watch, accused No.6 was the driver of the vehicle and the petitioner who is accused No.7 was carrying the mobile phones of various accused persons and harbored them. It is also revealed during investigation that two rooms were booked in the Lodge by this petitioner, to enable the assailants to hide after the incident. Therefore, it is clear that accused No.7 was actively involved in the commission of offences. 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.

¶31

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

¶32

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶33

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

the following:

R E A S O N S

The materials on record disclose that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. It is specifically stated that, on 21.04.2021 accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2, 6 and 7 had trespassed into the land belonging to the deceased and criminally intimidated by saying that they will bring JCB and demolish the compound wall. On the next date i.e., on the date of incident, accused Nos.1 to 4 again trespassed into the land belonging to the deceased and assaulted the deceased with machete, knife etc., and inflicted fatal injuries. As per the Post Mortem report, there are 9 injuries found on the dead body. It is stated that accused No.7 was holding mobile phones of the assailants and other accused and was having watch and ward at a distance. It is also stated that after incident the petitioner along with accused Nos.1, 2 , 4 and 6 went in a Maruti car and a room in the hotel was booked in the names of accused No.6 and 7. All these materials placed before the Court disclose that the petitioner was also very

¶38

¶39

much involved in the commission of the offences. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis cannot be accepted, at this stage. However, admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Even as per the charge sheet, the petitioner had not taken active role in assaulting the deceased. He had not inflicted any injuries. It is not the contention of prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation or that he is having criminal antecedents. Therefore, I do not find any reason to detain the petitioner in custody, which would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. 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.

¶40

¶41

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶42

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed.

¶45

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.227/2021 of Madanayakanahally Police Station, Bengaluru rural district, pending in S.C.No.182/2021 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural 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:

¶46

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

SKS

Sri. Anand v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Anand v. the 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

Manu Vs State of Karnataka

Prafulla Nayak @ Prema Vs State of Karnataka

Saif @ Saif Pasha @ Saif Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohan M @ Mohan Kumar M Vs State of Karnataka

Okoye Ernest Chinedu Vs State of Karnataka

Babu. P Vs the State of Karnataka