Allowed

Mahesh Kumar R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2022CRL.P/1705/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court exercised its powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to regular bail for the petitioner accused of instigating a murder. Acknowledging he instigated the quarrel remotely but was absent during the killing, the court granted bail subject to a bond and conditions against witness tampering and leaving jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by executing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties, prohibiting tampering with witnesses, and restricting travel from the jurisdiction without permission.

Mahesh Kumar R Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1705/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MAHESH KUMAR R, S/O. RAVI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT MELEKATTIGANOOR SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU- 560001. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.118/2021 REGISTERED BY NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT (C.C.NO.9925/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 37, 109, 120B, 143, 147, 148, 504, 302, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.6 in Crime No.118/2021 of Nelamangala Town Police Station, Nelamangala Sub-Division, Bengaluru District, for the offence punishable under Sections 37, 109, 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 201, 302 and 504 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶19

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 19.09.2021 at around 7.30 p.m., there was a quarrel between this petitioner and also the victim. In respect of the said quarrel, this petitioner had informed his friend i.e., accused No.1 through phone and again, there was a quarrel between the accused No.1 and victim over the phone and hence, all the other

¶20

¶21

accused persons have secured the victim and conspired with each other and committed the murder of the victim.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶23

the only allegation against this petitioner is that, at his instance, the quarrel has started between the other assailants and he committed the offence of abetment and this petitioner was not present at the time of committing the murder and with regard to the abetment is concerned, the same has to be proved during the course of trial. The counsel would also submit that this petitioner is in custody from 23.09.2021 and investigation has already been completed and charge sheet is filed and his custody is not required. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State also not disputes the fact that quarrel has taken place at the instance of this petitioner and the same was informed to accused No.1 over phone and thereafter, rivalry has developed between them and hence, committed the murder of the victim.

¶25

¶26

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, except the allegation that he is the part of abetment for committing the murder of the victim, no other allegation against this petitioner and he was not present at the time of committing the murder and he was also not a part of unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object. When such being the material on record, except the allegation that quarrel has taken place at the instance of this petitioner, that too over phone, no other allegation against this petitioner and taking note of the allegation made in the charge sheet, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶29

petitioner/accused No.6 shall be released on bail in Crime No.118/2021 of Nelamangala Town Police Station, Nelamangala Sub-Division, Bengaluru District, for the offence punishable under Sections 37, 109, 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 201, 302 and

¶30

¶31

504 read with Section 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶33

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶34

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶35

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court, till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Mahesh Kumar R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar R 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

Shankarappa Vs State of Karnataka

Devaraju Vs State by

Thangaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Ibrahim Vs Maria Cynthia

Mohamed Shamnas Vs the State of Karnataka

Santhosh S Vs the State by