Dismissed

Lawrence @ a. Anand v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2022CRL.P/1916/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Bench rejected a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by two accused charged with offences under Sections 143, 302, 307, and 149 of IPC. The Court held that bail is not appropriate when the accused are part of an unlawful assembly with a common object to take life, citing State of Rajasthan precedent.

What did the court decide?

Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail rejected; petitioners denied bail.

Lawrence @ a. Anand 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 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1916 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

1 . LAWRENCE @ A. ANAND S/O AMALANANDHAN 31 YEARS R/O 37, E.T. BLOCK,

¶9

OORGAUM POST

¶10

K.G.F. – 563 120

¶11

2 . MERVIN CHARLES @ PRABHU S/O AMALANANDHAN 34 YEARS R/O 37, E.T. BLOCK, OORGAUM POST

¶12

K.G.F. - 563 120

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNAN S., ADV.)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SPP, STATION HOUSE OFFICER ROBERTSONPET POLICE STATION, KGF

¶17

¶18

HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

… RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP )

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.,PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERs ON BAIL IN CR.NO.90/2021 OF ROBERTSONPET POLICE STATION, K.G.F (C.C.NO.32/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL J.M.F.C., K.G.F.) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 212 & 201 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail for the petitioners/accused in Crime No.90/2021 of Robertsonpet Police Station, K.G.F.(C.C. No.32/2022 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC Court, K.G.F.) for the offence punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 212 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also

¶26

the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶27

¶28

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 23.10.2021, these two petitioners along with other accused persons surrounded the victim. When he tried to escape from the spot, he was chased and assaulted. When C.Ws. 1 to 3 came to rescue the victim, they were also assaulted and an attempt was made to take away their life. The injured succumbed to the injuries and hence, case has been registered, investigated and charge-sheet has been filed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these two petitioners are accused Nos.14 and 15. The allegation is that accused Nos. 1 to 8 surrounded the victim and the specific overt act alleged against all the accused is that they inflicted injury to the victim. Learned counsel would submit that these two petitioners have not even inflicted any injury to the victim who died on account of the injury sustained in the attack. The only allegation made against these two petitioners is that both of them have assaulted C.W.1 and there is no assault made by these two petitioners against the victim who succumbed to

¶30

¶31

the injuries and since the investigation has already been completed, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶32

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that these petitioners were very much present at the spot and the allegation is that all accused surrounded the victim and when he tried to escape from the spot, chased him and made an attack. Learned counsel submits that accused No.14 inflicted injury with matchet on C.W.1 and accused No.15 also assaulted C.W.1 with iron rod and car which was used for committing the offence also belongs to accused No.14. Learned counsel would submit that in the history column of the hospital record, the name of these petitioners is specifically mentioned and they are also part of unlawful assembly and all of them shared the common object.

¶33

In reply to the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the State, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that wound certificate is also produced before the Court. Though the wound certificate does not disclose fracture, but injured is out of danger and also discharged from hospital.

¶34

¶35

When such being the case, in the circumstances, there is no need for custodial trial.

¶36

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

¶37

on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the allegation is an unlawful assembly is formed and in pursuance of the common object, both the petitioners assaulted the victim and inflicted injuries. No doubt that prosecution case is these two petitioners chased the victim and inflicted injuries to C.W.1, but injuries though are grievous in nature, C.W.1 is out of danger and he has been discharged from the hospital. The allegation against other persons is also that they inflicted injury to the victim.

¶38

The Hon'ble Apex Court in its Judgment in KUMER SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. reported in 2021 Crl. L.J. 4244, in the similar facts and circumstances when Section 143 read with Section 149 of IPC was invoked and also Sections 302 and 307 are invoked, while dealing with a bail matter, has held that it is required to be noted that when all the accused are charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 302,

¶39

¶40

307 read with Section 149 of IPC, at that stage, the individual role of accused is not required to be considered when they are alleged to be part of unlawful assembly and when they are charged for the above offences as well as under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC, they cannot be enlarged on bail.

¶41

In the case on hand also, taking note of the factual matrix, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KUMER SINGH (supra) is aptly applicable. These two petitioners are also part of unlawful assembly and with an intention to take away life, they attempted to commit murder and also caused injury to the persons who tried to rescue the victim who succumbed to the injuries. An assault was made and C.W.1 also sustained grievous injury while rescuing the victim. When such being the case, when the petitioners have shared the common object with other accused, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners. Hence, the petition is rejected.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

sac*

Lawrence @ a. Anand v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lawrence @ a. Anand 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandu Kumar Vs State by

Abhishek Vs State by Excise Pi

Nihas Vs State by Excise Pi

Chand Pasha @ Bande Chand Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagesh G C @ Nagesh Reddy Vs State by

Veerabhadra Swamy S @ Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka