In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for murder charges, the Karnataka High Court rejected the plea, upholding prima facie case due to specific overt act allegations against the petitioner, eyewitness accounts, and the heinous nature of the offence involving 51 injuries.
Bail petition rejected. Petitioner remains 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 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1796/2022
BETWEEN:
MR. ASHIK S/O KARUNAKARA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT KAUSHIK NILAYA CREMATION COMPOUND BEHIND HINDUSTAN FACTORY BALOOR, MANGAURU-575 003. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI DINESH KUMAR RAO K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BARKE POLICE STATION MANGALURU 575 004 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.44/2020 OF BARKE P.S., MANGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.120-B, 109, 143, 147, 148, 504, 302, 201, 212 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND U/S.27(1) OF ARMS ACT ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN S.C.NO.55/2021.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.6 in Crime No.44/2020 of Barke Police Station, Mangaluru City, for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3
5. Per contra , the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the State would submit that there were 51 external injuries found on the body of the deceased. The specific overt act allegation is made against this petitioner along with other accused persons. Hence, the Court has to take note of the seriousness of the allegation and the gravity of the offences and CWs.18 and 19 have witnessed the incident of inflicting the injuries and they are the eyewitnesses. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner herein.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal
of the material available on record, the specific overt act
4
allegation is made against this petitioner and other accused persons that they have inflicted injuries with beer bottle. Even after tracking the beer bottle, used the same for inflicting the injury. No doubt, this Court granted bail in favour of accused No.7 in Crl.P.No.7711/2021, wherein, it is observed that there are no any overt act allegation against the petitioner except the allegation that he made the victim to fall on the ground. The specific overt act allegation made against this petitioner and the same is spoken by the eyewitness - CW.18 and the presence of this petitioner was also mentioned in his statement dated 04.12.2020. The specific mention is also made that the incident was taken place at 1:30 p.m, on 26.11.2020 and there were 8 persons and they were stabbed with Talwar. When there are 51 injuries and the specific allegation of inflicting injury with the beer bottle against this petitioner, it is a matter of trial. Merely because he is in custody from 28.11.2020, it is not a ground when a heinous offence of murder is committed that too a barbaric Act and caused 51 injuries to the victim.
5
following:
ORDER
The bail petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
cp*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail in a murder case where specific overt act allegations exist.
Whether prior grant of bail to a co-accused is a ground for granting bail to the present petitioner.
Whether custody duration without recoveries made certifies that the case rests purely on circumstantial evidence.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
MR. ASHIK S/O KARUNAKARA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
