Dismissed

Naveen @ Smile Naveen v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 May 2022CRL.P/1918/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected. Court held that despite direct eye-witness testimony and seized blood-stained clothes, FSL report pending made it unfit case for bail. Liberty granted to approach court after FSL report receipt.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition rejected; liberty granted to approach after receipt of FSL report regarding seized blood-stained clothes.

Naveen @ Smile Naveen Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MAY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1918/2022 C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3774/2021

¶7

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1918/2022:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NAVEEN @ SMILE NAVEEN S/O. LATE DURGA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.884 BESIDE ABUDEVURA MASEED BDA QUARTERS AVALAHALLI, ANJANAPURA BENGALURU-560 062. … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI N.UDAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO KAGGALIPURA PS BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 061 REPPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI H.S.SHANKAR, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.149/2020 (CR.NO.141/2020) OF KAGGALIPURA P.S., RAMANAGARA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 120B, 34, 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶16

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3774/2021:

¶17

BETWEEN:

¶18

1 . LOKESH N. S/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT SMIVASANAHALLI LAYOUT, AVALAHALLI, ANJANAPURA, BENGALURU-560062.

¶19

2 . MADHU N, S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT 1^ST CROSS NEAR VEERABHADRASWAMY LAYOUT DODDANAGAMANGALA ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU-560100.

¶20

3 . SUNIL @ CHANDINI S/O MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT WEAVERS COLONY ANEKAL TOWN, JIGANI HOBLI BENGALURU-562123.

¶21

(VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 03.06.2021 PETITION AGAINST PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 IS DIMISSED) … PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI N.UDAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶23

¶24

AND:

¶25

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, KAGGALIPURA PS, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560061 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560001. … RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI H.S.SHANKAR, HCGP)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.141/2020 (S.C.NO.149/2020) OF KAGGALIPURA P.S., RAMNAGARA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 148, 143, 147, 34, 120B, 341, 302 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶28

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

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

These petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crime No.141/2020 of Kaggalipura Police Station, Harohalli Circle, Ramanagara, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 34 and 120-B read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶31

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶33

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that these two petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.4 and 5 and these petitioners have inflicted injuries on the victim i.e., accused No.4 by talwar and accused No.5 by cricket bat on 08.07.2020 and statement of eye witnesses i.e., C.Ws.2 to 5 was recorded on 09.07.2020 and these petitioners were arrested on 10.07.2020 and the blood stained clothes of these petitioners were also seized and FSL report is yet to be received.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that C.W.27-Engineer has given the report that on the date of the incident, there was heavy rain and there was no power. Hence, the question of identification does not arise. The counsel would also submit that accused Nos.9 to 12 have already been granted bail and these petitioners are in custody from one year eight months and there is no need of further custodial trial since, investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been

¶35

¶36

filed. The counsel would further submit that eye witnesses have not revealed the names of these petitioners on the very date on which the statement was recorded i.e., 09.07.2020 and only on 11.07.2020, the names of these petitioners were revealed i.e., after their arrest. Hence, they are entitled for bail.

¶37

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that there are 16 multiple injuries and on account of multiple injuries, the injured succumbed to the same and specific allegations are made against these two petitioners that they inflicted injuries with talwar and cricket bat and eye witnesses i.e., C.Ws.2 to 5 have witnessed the incident and there was no delay in recording the statement of the eye witnesses. He would also submit that these petitioners have used the vehicle and the statement of the driver of the vehicle i.e., C.W.44 was also recorded. He would further submit that blood stained clothes of these petitioners were also seized and the FSL report is awaited.

¶38

Having heard the respective counsel and also on

¶39

perusal of the material available on record, C.Ws.2 to 5 are the

¶40

¶41

eye witnesses according to the prosecution. The postmortem report discloses that the cause of death was on account of multiple injuries. When there is a direct evidence against the petitioners herein i.e., C.Ws.2 to 5, who are the eye witnesses and the statement of the eye witnesses was also recorded on 09.07.2020 immediately after the alleged incident on 08.07.2020, no doubt, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that names of these petitioners were revealed on 11.07.2020, after their arrest and when the blood stained clothes of these petitioners are also seized at the instance of these petitioners and FSL report is awaited, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners. When there is a direct evidence as well seizure at the instance of these petitioners i.e., blood stained clothes, it is not appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this juncture, unless the FSL report is received. Whether there was a power or not on the date of the incident is a matter of trial and at this stage, this Court cannot exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners.

¶42

¶43

The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that accused Nos.9 to 12 have already been enlarged on bail. On perusal of the charge sheet material, it is seen that, allegation against accused Nos.9 to 12 is that they only restricted C.Ws.2 and 3 not to alight from the car. However, there is a specific overt act allegation against these petitioners. When such being the facts of the case, the ground that bail has already been granted in favour of accused Nos.9 to 12 cannot be a ground to grant bail in favour of these petitioners.

¶44

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶45

following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The criminal petition is rejected.

¶48

(ii) However, liberty is given to the petitioners to approach this Court, after receipt of FSL report regarding seizure of blood stained clothes.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Naveen @ Smile Naveen v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen @ Smile Naveen 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Manoj N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Chandrashekara. M. B. Vs State by

Susheela Bai Vs State of Karnataka

Omkara Vs State of Karnataka

Vinuth B.G. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H S Manju Vs State of Karnataka