The High Court rejected a bail petition for a petitioner accused of murder under Section 302 IPC. The court held that direct eyewitnesses, the nature of injuries, and the heinousness of the offence warranted denying bail, citing risk of absconding and threat to witnesses.
Bail petition rejected.
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 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1721/2021
BETWEEN:
RAVI S/O LATE GOPALA SHETTY @ RANGA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT: ANTHARASANTHE VILLAGE H.D.KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-577123. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAGAR N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI LETHIF B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BEECHANAHALLI POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.14/2020 (C.C.NO.157/2020) OF BEECHANAHALLI POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.14/2020 of Beechanahalli Police Station, Mysuru District, for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/ State.
3
trial is required. The petitioner is ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court.
appearing for the State also would submit that the weapon was also seized and the post-mortem report discloses that there were several injuries and the death was due to shock and hemorrhage and the multiple chop injuries sustained. The investigation officer also collected CCTV footage in respect of the place of incident and 164 statement of eyewitnesses was also recorded.
perusal of the material on record, it is a case of inflicting injury with the deadly weapon and several injuries were also caused and there are direct evidence against the petitioner and
4
recoveries also made at the instance of the petitioner and it is a heinous offence and it is nothing but a blood thirsty. Hence, the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the petitioner. Merely because he is in custody, it is not a ground to enlarge him on bail when serious offence of murder is committed. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is a chance of fleeing away from justice as well as causing threat to the eyewitnesses, who are the direct witnesses to the incident.
following:
ORDER
The bail petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
cp*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a murder charge despite lack of custodial trial requirement.
Whether the presence of direct eyewitnesses and prima facie case justifies denial of bail in a heinous offence.
Ravi
The State of Karnataka
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
