The High Court of Karnataka rejected a bail petition filed by the accused in a murder case. The court considered prosecutory evidence including witness statements and held that there was sufficient prima facie material to reject the bail plea.
Bail petition rejected; petitioner to remain in custody.
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 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1737/2022
BETWEEN
PRABHU S/O. NINGESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT KEREBILACHI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577213 (BY SRI JAYA PRAKASH K N, ADVOCATE) AND
(BY SRI JAYA PRAKASH K N, ADVOCATE)
...PETITIONER
STATE OF KARNATAKA CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION DAVANAGERE DISTRICT REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.264/2021 OF CHANNAGIRI P.S., DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.302,201 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND ETC.
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.264/2021 of Channagiri Police Station, Davanagere for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
the husband of accused No.1 and there was a quarrel between the deceased and accused No.1 hence, accused No.1 left the matrimonial home three years ago along with the children i.e., CW13 and CW14 and when accused No.1 was in her parental home, she developed the illicit relationship with this petitioner/accused No.2 and later, the deceased taken accused No.1 back along with the children and inspite of the same, accused No.1 continued her relationship with this petitioner and that on 27.07.2021, this petitioner was called to Bannihatti, accordingly, this petitioner came there at night around
3
11.00 p.m., in his motorcycle and went to the house of the deceased and at that time, CW13 and 14 were sleeping and accused No.1 and this petitioner made an attempt to commit the murder of the deceased by using the veil and the same was witnessed by CW13 and accused No.1 threatened him to sleep and thereafter accused No.1 and this petitioner made an attempt to shift the dead body but they could not hence, this petitioner left the spot and the motive for committing the murder is that the deceased was restraining accused No.1 to continue her illicit relationship with this petitioner. At the first instance, the complaint was given against accused No.1 and other assailants and during the course of investigation, this petitioner was implicated as accused No.2 and also recorded the statements of the witnesses and filed the charge-sheet.
4
petitioner and this petitioner was implicated in the case based on the statement of CW13 and 14 which was recorded on 05.08.2021 and the counsel also submits that though the prosecution relies upon the statements of CW21 and 22, their statements were also recorded on 05.08.2021 hence, the very allegation made against this petitioner is baseless and there is no material to connect this petitioner in the alleged crime hence, prayed to allow the petition.
Pleader appearing for the State would submit that in the complaint, the specific allegation is made against accused No.1 and also her supports and the eye-witnesses CW21 and 22 who have witnessed that this petitioner coming to the house of accused No.1 and CW14 saw this petitioner while going in the motorcycle by pulling and the counsel also submits that CW13 is the son of the deceased and his statement was also recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, before the learned Magistrate wherein he categorically deposed that this petitioner strangulated the deceased and his mother i.e., accused No.1 was
5
holding the legs of the deceased and the counsel submits that PM report is also clear that the death is on account of strangulation hence, there is a prima facie material against this petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6
main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the statement of CW13 was recorded belatedly and hence, cannot be believed and CW13 is none other than the son of the deceased as well as accused No.1. No doubt, other witnesses i.e., CW21 and 22 statements were also recorded on 05.08.2021 i.e., within a span of 7 days of the alleged incident and they also categorically stated that both of them have seen this petitioner visiting the house of the deceased and one of the witness-CW21 categorically stated that around 2.00 a.m., this petitioner left the house of the deceased by pushing the motorcycle in which he came and cause of death is also on account of strangulation and the case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 and this petitioner have joined together and committed the murder of the deceased in order to avoid him from their way. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is in custody from the date of arrest hence, there is no need of further custodial trial of this petitioner and the same cannot be accepted at this juncture when an heinous offence of committing murder with a motive to eliminate the deceased since there was an illicit relationship with accused No.1 and this petitioner.
7
following:
ORDER
The bail petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
SN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to enlarge the petitioner on bail in a case involving an attempt to commit murder.
Whether the statement of the deceased's son is credible and sufficient to deal with the bail petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prabu S/o. Ningeshappa
State of Karnataka
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
