Dismissed

Kiran v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2021CRL.P/7839/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka考察d a bail application for an accused charged with murder. The Court rejected the plea for relief, citing the gravity of the offence, the accused's prior criminal background and risk of tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, and the petitioner is not granted bail.

Kiran 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 JULY, 2021 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7839/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Kiran S/o late Ramegowda Aged about 25 years R/at Gantehakalu Village Juraspura Post Theerthalli Taluk Shivamoga District – 577 201.

¶8

Presently r/at No.501, Bhyrappa Complex In front of SBI Main Road Hebbal 1^st Stage Mysuru – 570 014.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri. Kumara K.G., Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

State of Karnataka By Hebbal Police Station Mysuru – 570 014.

¶13

Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶14

… Respondent (By Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

¶15

¶16

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.43/2020 (S.C.No.166/2020) of Hebbal Police Station, Mysuru for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 120B, 114, 504, 506(II) read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶17

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders , this day through Video Conferencing, the Court made the following:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.43/2020 registered by Hebbal Police Station, Mysuru for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 120B, 114, 504, 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the material on record.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of the father of deceased, one Sri.Nagendra filed a complaint on 22.07.2020 alleging that his son-Darshan, an auto driver, after completion of work on the night hours, on

¶22

¶23

21.07.2020, he went out of the house for the purpose of drinking and did not return to the hosue. The complainant did not search him since the deceased used to sleep in the grand mother’s house. Later, he received a phone call from the Police that his son got admitted in the K.R.Hospital at Mysuru. He went to the hospital and found his son dead and a case was registered against an unknown person. During the course of investigation, the Police arrested the petitioner and accused No.2 on 28.07.2020 and based upon the voluntary statement, the petitioner was arrested, both of them were involved in the criminal conspiracy. After investigation was completed, charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner has approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and the case was registered against an unknown person. The Police arrested the petitioner and other accused on 28.07.2020, but

¶25

¶26

the statement of the eyewitnesses recorded was after 15 days of the incident i.e., on 07.08.2020 and accused No.2 has already granted with the relief of bail by the Sessions Judge. Even on perusal of the statement of CWs.25 and 26, there is no intention of both to commit the murder of Darshan but there was a quarrel between CWs.25 and 26 and the accused persons. During that time, the accused No.1 tried to assault CWs.25 and 26 and when the same was questioned by the deceased, he has been assaulted by the accused. Therefore, it cannot be considered that the accused has committed the murder. Accused No.2 has been granted with the relief of bail by the Sessions Court and therefore, this petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶27

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition mainly on the ground that this petitioner has committed murder by stabbing. He came with a knife which itself shows that he has committed the murder of the deceased. The petitioner is also involved in another Crime No.78/2014 of Nazarbad Police Station,

¶28

¶29

Mysuru and another case in Crime No.409/2015 of Immortal Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Human Trafficking Case under Section 370 of IPC. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶30

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records it shows that admittedly, a case was registered against an unknown person and the deceased was found with unconscious status when he was shifted to the hospital by ambulance. During the course of investigation, the Police have arrested the petitioner and accused No.2 on 28.07.2020 and on the basis of their voluntary statement, the Police have recovered the knife from this petitioner and during the course of investigation, it was also revealed that there was a quarrel between CWs.25 and 26 and the petitioner. At the time of incident, CWs.25 and 26 took the deceased for their support as accused Nos.1 and 2 scolded CWs.25 and 26. During that quarrel, the accused tried to assault CWs.25 and 26. When the deceased questioned the same, the accused No.1 stabbed the deceased from a knife which was kept in

¶31

¶32

his pocket, which reveals that the petitioner has come with preparation to assault or commit the offence. During the quarrel, the accused No.1 stabbed the deceased and caused the death of the deceased. The statement of eyewitnesses i.e., CWs.25 and 26 clearly reveals that they have stated that accused No.1 has kept the knife in his pocket and committed the murder. Of course, accused No.2 also abetted of committing murder who has granted with the relief of bail by the Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.1439/2020. But in this petition, this petitioner actually committed the murder by stabbing. The same was referred by the Sessions Judge in his order dated 07.12.2020 that accused No.1 stabbed the deceased and the case against accused No.2 required to be proved in trial. Therefore, in that view, the petitioner is not entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶33

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is a delay of 15 days in recording the statement of eyewitnesses and the Police released the statement how they came to know this petitioner are culprits

¶34

¶35

etc., the Court cannot conduct a mini trial and appreciate or re-appreciate the statements of witnesses at this stage. That apart, this petitioner is involved in other crime represented by the Nazarabad Police, Mysuru and also in Crime Nos.78/2014 and 409/2015. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. If he is granted bail, he may commit similar type of offences and absconding from the cases and tampering the witnesses are not ruled out.

¶36

Accordingly, the bail application filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.

¶37

SD/JUDGE

¶38

NR/-

Kiran v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran 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

Santhosh Vs the State of Karnataka

Gopal Chatri Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallappa v Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmidevamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Kishor v Patel Vs State of Karnataka

Govindaraju Vs State of Karnataka