Criminal Petition for enlargement on bail in a double murder and dacoity case was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka due to the heinous nature of the offences involving death of two persons and looting.
Petition for enlargement on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
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 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.705 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
B. BHARATHA S/O. BABU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SANTHESHIVARA VILLAGE, CHIKKAHONAHALI GATE, NUGGEHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK – 573 116, HASSAN DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA CHANNARAYAPATNA RURAL POLICE, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK – 573 116, HASSAN DISTRICT, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, H.C.G.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.128 OF 2020 OF CHANNARAYAPATNA RURAL POLICE STATION, HASSAN, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 396 AND 120B OF THE IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
O R D E R
This petition is filed by accused No.5 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting regular bail in Crime No.128 of 2020 registered by Channarayapatna Rural Police Station, Hassan, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and filed charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 396 and 120B of the IPC.
3
residing in a garden house, the accused persons believed that the deceased would have sold the land and having Rs.50.00 crore in his house. Therefore, in order to commit dacoity, they made observation in the house of the deceased and later, on 29-8-2020 in the night hours, accused No.2 is said to have called the deceased outside the house and thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 5 surrounded him and dragged him inside the house, tied his hands, legs and closed his mouth with installation tape and also closed the mouth of the wife of the deceased with the installation tape and caused death of both husband and wife and taken away 316 grams of gold ornaments, 2250 grams of silver articles and also withdrawn money from ATM card of the deceased and fled away. After registering the case and during investigation, the Police arrested accused No.2-Manjashetty @ Dwaraki @ Rahul and on the voluntary statement, it is revealed that, the petitioner in collusion with accused Nos.1 to 4 committed dacoity and murder. The Police recovered Rs.5,000/- from the
4
petitioner. Total recovery is worth Rs.17,30,000/-. Thereafter, the Police have filed charge-sheet. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.
5
Pleader has seriously objected the bail petition and contended that, the petitioner along with other accused persons committed dacoity and murder, which is punishable with death and imprisonment for life. The accused persons have committed heinous offence by committing two murders, i.e. both husband and wife and also committed dacoity by taking gold and silver articles and also withdrawn cash from ATM card, which belongs to the deceased. If the petitioner is granted bail, he may commit similar offence and abscond from the case. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the petition.
6
crore, which is said to have been kept in the house of the deceased by selling land. During investigation, all the accused persons have been arrested by the Police. From the charge-sheet, it is revealed that accused No.2 is known persons to the deceased-Muralidhara. The accused persons observed the movements in the house of the deceased between 24-8-2020 and 28-8-2020. On 29-8-2020, accused No.2 called the deceased to come out of the house and when the deceased came out, other accused persons surrounded, threatened him and tied hands, legs with installation tape and also closed the mouth of the wife of the deceased with the installation tape and caused death of both husband and wife by smothering and looted gold and silver articles and cash belonging to them. Though the recovery of cash is only Rs.5,000/- from the petitioner and allegation against him is that, he held the legs of the deceased-Muralidhara, but looking to the entire overt act made from different accused, they share common intention to commit dacoity
7
and looted the property worth Rs.17,30,000/- and committed double murder of both husband and wife. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offences and dacoity with double murder, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, the petition
is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
kvk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a case involving double murder and dacoity under Sections 302, 396 and 120B of the IPC.
Whether the gravity of the offence and the fact that two lives were lost precludes the grant of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
B. BHARATHA S/O. BABU
STATE OF KARNATAKA
K. NATARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
