The Karnataka High Court considered a petition for enlarged bail in a murder case (201/302 IPC). The accused, though arrayed in the charge sheet, was not named in the FIR and relied on circumstantial evidence. The court allowed bail on 2 lakh rupees bond.
Petitioner enlarged on bail in sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties subject to conditions.
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 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.910 OF 2021
BETWEEN :
MR.GANESH @ GANI AGED 24 YEARS, SON OF SIDDALINGAPPA, RESIDING AT KURUBARA BEEDHI, NAVULE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577 204.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE VINOBHANAGARA POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTIOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 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.111/2020 REGISTERED BY VINOBANAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 AND 201 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R
The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking
grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.111/2020 of Vinobanagara Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 201, 302 R/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri.Jagadeesha.
petitioner and Sri.H.R.Showri, learned HCGP for the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed on record.
the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2, while filing charge sheet by Investigation Officer. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis, while filing F.I.R. Immediately after the incident, names of accused Nos. 1 to 6 were specifically mentioned by the first informant who is the brother of the deceased. During investigation, it was found that accused Nos.2 to 6 named in the F.I.R. have
not committed any offence. Charge sheet came to registered against the present petitioner along with accused No.1. There is no eye witness to the incident. Prosecution has relying on the circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. None no eye witnesses have stated regarding commission of the offence by the present petitioner. Even though it is stated that there was recovery of incriminating material at the instance of the present petitioner, the same is joint recovery along with accused No.1, who is named by all the witnesses and also named in the first information filed in the initial stage. Therefore, there is absolutely no material against the present petitioner to the offence in question. He was apprehended on 03.08.2020. Since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. He is not required for any other purpose except to ensure his presence before trial Court and to safeguard the interest of the prosecution witnesses. 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
4 -
be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for
grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in the ‘Affirmative’ for the following:
R E A S O N S
and further said that they came to know from others about the involvement of this petitioner in commission of the offence
in question. Even though the prosecution is relying on the recovery of incriminating material from this petitioner, such
recovery is joint recovery at the instance of both accused Nos.1 and 2. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses to the incident. All the witnesses refer the name of accused No.1 and they also said to have last seen the deceased in the company of accused No.1. No such material is available against the present petitioner. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment and denial of his right to life and living. 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.
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.111/2020 of Vinobanagara Police Station 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:
b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.
Sd/JUDGE
gpg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
MR.GANESH @ GANI
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
