Dismissed

Teju K v. State by Hebbal Police

Karnataka HC25 May 2022CRL.P/1848/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in Criminal Petition No.1848/2022, refused to enlarge a petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The case involved a pre-planned attempt to murder using a knife and stone. The Court held that the presence of serious injuries and the pre-planned nature of the offence made it unfit to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition seeking regular bail rejected.

Teju K Vs State by Hebbal Police — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1848/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

TEJU K, S/O KUMAR P, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT 1304, 13^TH CROSS, NEAR SHANESHWARA TEMPLE, JANATHA NAGAR, MYSORE 570 001. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY HEBBAL POLICE, MYSORE, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE 560 001. ...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.60/2021 OF HEBBAL P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 307, 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON FILE OF THE 6^TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT MYSURU.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.60/2021 of Hebbal Police Station, Mysuru, for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 201 read with Section 34 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 this petitioner and accused No.2, who is a juvenile offender took the injured to a lonely place in the garden due to prior illwill and planned to eliminate the victim and both of them were having dagger and with an intention to take away the life, this petitioner inflicted injury with knife on the abdomen and accused No.2 also inflicted injury and thereafter also assaulted with stone on his head and made an attempt to take away the life of the victim. The police have registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶21

the petitioner is in custody from last eight months and he is

¶22

¶23

aged about 20 years and there was a ill-will between accused No.2 and this petitioner and the injured is out of danger and he has been discharged from the hospital and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that it is a pre-planned attempt to take away the life of the victim. The victim was taken to a lonely place in the garden and inflicted injury with dagger on the abdomen and injury is also penetrating injury and sharp edged weapon was in situ when the injured was taken to the hospital and merely because the injured is out of danger is not a ground to grant bail when an attempt is made to take away the life with pre-plan and hence there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and he is not entitled for bail.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and on perusal of the material available on record, there are eye-witnesses to the incident. Apart from that, the injured also made the statement that this petitioner inflicted injury with sharp edged weapon on the abdomen and as a result,

¶26

¶27

he had sustained penetrating injury on the abdomen. The wound certificate discloses penetrative injury of 3 x 3 cm. in the upper aspect of right iliac possa (sharp instrument in-situ) and also penetrating injury of 2 x 3 cm. in the right lumbar region. The doctor has also opined that injury Nos.1 to 3 are grievous in nature and injury No.4 is simple in nature and also opinion is taken with regard to the weapon used for committing the assault. The weapons which were seized were stained with blood and FSL report is received. When such being the material available on record, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner when an attempt is made to take away the life of the victim that too with a pre-plan.

¶28

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶29

following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petition is rejected.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Teju K v. State by Hebbal Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teju K v. State by Hebbal Police

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

Lingaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Noor Jaan @ Noorunissa Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraja Vs the State of Karnataka

Amith Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Ashik Vs the State of Karnataka

B L Babu @ Machi Babu Vs State by