Dismissed

Puneeth Kumar v. State by

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2022CRL.P/1283/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court denied bail to the petitioner in a murder case, noting hostile witnesses and his criminal record as grounds. However, it directed the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within four months. The court relied on a Supreme Court precedent regarding crucial witnesses yet to be examined.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to dispose of the matter within four months.

Puneeth Kumar Vs State by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1283/2022

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

PUNEETH KUMAR S/O PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS NEAR HANUMANTHARAJU HOUSE ARALEKATTU, GANIGARAPALYA BENGALURU-560032

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI RANGANATH REDDY R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER J.P.NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.81/2020 OF JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.81/2020 of Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶20

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that already an eye-witnesses have been examined i.e., PW4 to PW8 but they have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the case of the prosecution is that PW1 who have been examined also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the remaining witnesses are only the formal witnesses and the victim mentioned the name of one Punith who inflicted injury and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶23

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that some of the

¶24

¶25

witnesses have not been supported the case of the prosecution is not a ground to enlarge this petitioner on bail and this petitioner is a rowdy-sheeter, there are 5 cases registered against this petitioner and this petitioner is having criminal antecedents and if he enlarged on bail, there is a chances of tampering of other prosecution witnesses hence, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail unless full-fledged trial is conducted.

¶26

Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record it discloses that no doubt, some of the witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court but they have not supported the case of the prosecution and mere not supporting some of the witnesses is not a ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail when heinous offence of murder is attributed against this petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of MAMATA AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER decided on 24.05.2022 has observed that an important circumstances which should have, but has not been taken into consideration by the High Court is that the crucial

¶27

¶28

witnesses have yet to be examined. The apprehension of the accused and of the prosecution that the witnesses may be tampered with cannot be regarded as lacking in substance and the Apex Court set aside the order of the High Court and categorically observed that crucial witnesses yet to be examined, under the circumstances, ought not to have been exercised the discretion. In the case on hand also the prosecution brought to the notice of this Court that this petitioner is a rowdy-sheeter having criminal antecedents against him and there are 5 cases registered against this petitioner and if he enlarged on bail, there is a chances of tampering of remaining prosecution witnesses hence, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. However, this Court taking into note of the fact that PW4 to PW8 i.e., eye-witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court and this Court can give a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from today.

¶29

With the above observation, the petition is disposed of. Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from today.

¶30

¶31

Registry is directed to communicate this order

forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Puneeth Kumar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puneeth Kumar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nithin Subbaiah B C Vs the State of Karnataka

Nayazulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shankara M Vs State of Karnataka

Salman @ Snoofi Vs State of Karnataka

Vinod @ Bulli Vs the State of Karnataka

Kiran @ Bikku Kirana Vs State by