Partly allowed

Nanjundaswamy M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2021CRL.P/961/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, while hearing a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences including murder, held that the nature of the offence precludes bail for one accused but allows it for another, distinguishing based on their roles and acts during the incident.

What did the court decide?

Grant of bail to petitioner accused No.3 on conditions; rejection of bail for accused No.1.

Nanjundaswamy M 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 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.961 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NANJUNDASWAMY M. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O. MALIYAIAH, RESIDING AT MADRAHALLI VILLAGE, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 301.

¶9

SOMU @ SOMASHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O. KEMPARAJU, RESIDING AT SRINAGAR VILLAGE, NANJANAGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 301. ... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI P. NATARAJU, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAVALANDE POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, H.C.G.P.)

¶15

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.96 OF 2020 OF KOWLANDE POLICE STATION, MYSURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 AND 302 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 3 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting regular bail in Crime No.96 of 2020 registered by Kowlande Police Station, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

¶21

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶22

the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that, on 2-8-2020, Sri Ningaiah lodged a complaint against the accused persons alleging that he is working as a Waterman and

¶24

¶25

when he was proceeding towards his house near Anganawadi School, accused Nos.1 to 3 were sitting near the School and the complainant questioned as to why they are making the place dirty by eating and drinking at that place. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 3 picked up quarrel and accused No.2 is said to have stabbed the complainant on the back and accused No.3 is said to have held the complainant. At that time, C.W.3 intervened and pacified them. The complainant informed the said matter to his brother Mahadevu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) and when the deceased questioned the accused as to why they have assaulted the complainant, at that time, accused No.1 stabbed the deceased with knife. When C.W.2-son of the deceased and C.W.3 intervened, accused No.2 stabbed C.W.2 with knife on the right thigh and accused No.1 stabbed C.W.3 on the left hand and accused No.3 assaulted C.Ws.2 and 3 by hands. Subsequently, the deceased and the injured were taken to the Hospital, where the deceased was declared dead. The Police

¶26

¶27

arrested accused Nos.1 to 3 on 4-8-2020 and remanded them to judicial custody. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that, there is no intention or motive to commit the murder of the deceased. Quarrel took place suddenly when the deceased and the complainant approached the accused persons for questioning the assault on the complainant. Therefore, it is a homicidal death not amounting to murder. Accused No.3 is a friend of accused No.1 and he had come to the Village to meet accused No.1. There is no overt act attributed against accused No.3. Accused No.3 assaulted only with hands. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶29

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petition and contended that, there are totally three injured and one death. There is strong material placed on record to show that accused

¶30

¶31

persons have committed the offence. If the petitioners are granted bail, there are chances of absconding and tampering with the witnesses. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶32

Upon considering the arguments and perusal of the record, incident took place when the deceased along with the complainant approached the accused persons as to why they have assaulted the complainant. At that time, accused No.1 is said to have assaulted the deceased with knife on his chest and committed the murder of the deceased. Accused No.3 is said to have assaulted C.Ws.2 and 3 with hands. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there is no intention or motive to commit the murder of the deceased as they have already assaulted the complainant with knife on his back and when the deceased questioned the accused persons as to why they assaulted the complainant, accused No.1 assaulted the deceased on the chest and committed the

¶33

¶34

murder and therefore, whether there is motive or intention, it is a matter of trial. Accused No.3 assaulted C.Ws.2 and 3 with hands and he had come to meet accused No.1. Therefore, only accused No.3 is entitled for bail and grant of bail to accused No.1 is rejected. Hence, I pass the following

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

Criminal petition is partly allowed .

¶37

The Trial Court is directed to release the petitioneraccused No.3 on bail in Crime No.96 of 2020 registered by Kowlande Police Station, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

¶39

¶40

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶41

iii) Petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences; and

¶42

iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.

¶43

If any of the conditions is violated, the prosecution is

¶44

at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

kvk

Nanjundaswamy M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanjundaswamy M 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

Erappa @ Mukrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Gangaraju Vs State of Karnataka by Its

Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Vs State of Karnataka

Rachaiah Vs State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Somanna

Anil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka