Dismissed

Shabhana Bhanu v. State by

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2022CRL.P/1288/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding murder and robbery charges, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the successor application. The Court held there were no changed circumstances given existing CC TV footage and recovery of articles, rejecting arguments on lack of TIDP or witness statement mentions.

What did the court decide?

Petition for bail dismissed. Liberty reserved to approach the Trial Court after examination of material witnesses.

Shabhana Bhanu Vs State by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^th DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1288 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHABHANA BHANU W/O MOHAMMAD BILAL, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, 3^RD CROSS, ANEPALYA BENGALURU – 560 030. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI TEJAS N, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI K S ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.52/2021 REGISTERED BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU (S.C.NO.983/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

¶14

¶15

MAYO HALL, BENGALURU) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 397 OF IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner who is the sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.52/2021 of Ashok Nagar Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Zeeshan Hyder.

¶19

Heard Shri Tejas.N., learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent/State. Perused the materials on record.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the sole accused and he had filed the petition in Crl.P.No.4765/2021 before this Court seeking similar relief. The said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated

¶21

¶22

04.08.2021. Even though the petitioner was apprehended on

¶23

08.03.2021, he is still in judicial custody without trial. There are no eye-witnesses to speak about the commission of the offence by the petitioner. Even though the prosecution is relying on the statements of CWs-4 to 6 said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer, there is no mention about such statements in the remand application. No Test Identification Parade was conducted till today. Under such circumstances, there is absolutely no material against the petitioner to connect him to the offence in question. The detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pretrial punishment. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and hence, prays for allowing of this petition.

¶24

Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the Respondent/State opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though the Test Identification Parade was not conducted by the Investigating Officer, there

¶25

¶26

are ample material to connect the petitioner to the offence in question. The prosecution is relying on the CC TV footage where the involvement of the petitioner is clearly seen. Moreover, incriminating material such as stolen property and the electric wire that was used to strangulate the neck of the deceased by the petitioner were recovered at her instance. Moreover, there are no changed circumstances to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

In view of rival contentions urged by the learned

¶28

counsel on both sides, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶29

“‘Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶30

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

¶31

¶32

REASONS

¶33

Admittedly, this is the successive bail petition filed by the petitioner after dismissal of the similar petition in Crl.P.No.4765/2021 vide order dated 04.08.2021.

¶34

The first contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the remand application filed by the Investigating Officer, there is no mention regarding the statements of CWs-4 to 6 recorded by the Investigating Officer, cannot be a ground to seek bail at this stage. The second contention taken by the learned counsel is that no Test Identification Parade was conducted has been considered by this Court in the first bail petition filed by the petitioner and it is held that the same is not prejudicial to the case of the prosecution since the prosecution is relying on other materials to connect the petitioner to the offence in question. As rightly contended by the learned HCGP, the Investigating Officer refers to the CC TV footage and recovery of the incriminating materials at the instance of the accused to connect her to the offence in question. Under such circumstances, I do not find

¶35

¶36

any changed circumstances to entertain the petition. Petition is dismissed .

¶37

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to approach the Court after examination of the material witnesses.

¶38

Learned HCGP submits that CWs-1, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are the material witnesses.

¶39

Liberty is reserved to the learned counsel for the petitioner to move the Trial Court after examination of the material witnesses CWs-1, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19 and 20, if he is advised to do so.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Shabhana Bhanu v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabhana Bhanu v. State by

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

Sri Yallappa Vs the State of Karnataka

N Jeevan Vs State of Karnataka by

Ajay L Vs State of Karnataka

Praveen @ Yesu Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdul Zabir @ Zabir Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bharamappa K Vs the State