Allowed

Nagaraja B v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2022CRL.P/2051/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused facing murder charges. The bench held that as the recovery weapon was not directly linked to the strangulation and other accused were on bail, granting bail was a fit case.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is released on bail subject to executing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties and complying with specified conditions.

Nagaraja B Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2051 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

NAGARAJA B S/O BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT A.K.COLONY, CHANNAGIRI TOWN, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, PIN-577213. …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI PRAVEEN C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY., HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.120/2021 REGISTERED BY CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 120(B) READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC (S.C.NO.127/2021 PENDING ON

¶14

¶15

THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE).

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated 09.06.2022 for having paid the cost of Rs.1,000/before the Registry of this Court.

¶19

Memo is taken on record.

¶20

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.120/2021 of Channagiri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(b) read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that accused Nos.2 and 3 having illicit relationship with each other and engaged the services of accused No.1 to commit the murder of Chikkanaika. At the first instance, UDR is registered and subsequently, after obtaining post mortem report, the doctor has opined that it is the case of strangulation and hence, the case is registered and matter is investigated and charge sheet is filed. During the course of investigation, it has emerged that accused No.1 followed the victim-Chikkanaika and using the saree to strangulate him and thereafter, called accused Nos.2 and 1 and left in the Maruthi Omini Vehicle which was brought by accused No.2 and dropped accused No.1 at Channagirinagara and the saree which was used for strangulation was burnt but the sickle which was used for cutting of saree was recovered at the instance of the petitioner.

¶24

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶25

would submit that the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence and accused Nos.2 and 3 have already been

¶26

¶27

enlarged on bail. Learned counsel would further submit that at the first instance, UDR was registered. Subsequently, case was registered and matter was investigated. This petitioner is in custody since last one year two months. Learned counsel would further submit that recovered sickle was not used for committing an offence, only allegations is that the victim was murdered by strangulation. When the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence, no need of continuing the petitioner in custody. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶28

Per contract, learned HCGP appearing for the

¶29

State would submits that the weapon which was used for cutting of saree was recovered at the instance of this petitioner and apart from that CW-16 had witnessed this petitioner along with the victim and relies upon the last scene witness. Hence, there are prima-facie materials against this petitioner.

¶30

¶31

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing

¶32

for the petitioner and also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, it is not in dispute that at the first instance UDR was registered and thereafter, based on the opinion of the doctor that it is the case of strangulation, the case has been registered against the petitioner and other accused persons and the matter was investigated. It is not in dispute that, accused Nos. 2 and 3 have already been enlarged on bail. When the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence, it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the weapon which is recovered, was not used for committing the offence and also it is the case of strangulation and except the statement of CW16, that he had seen the petitioner with the victim, no other strong circumstances are found against the petitioner. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner, subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and

¶33

¶34

safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass

¶35

the following:-

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioneraccused No.1 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.120/2021 of Channagiri Police Station registered

¶38

for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(b) read with section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶39

(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶40

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶41

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶42

¶43

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against her is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

JS/-

Nagaraja B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraja B v. the 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 Syamdas v.H., Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anubhav Ravendran Vs State of Karnataka

Raghu Vs State of Karnataka

Hemanth Ghop @ Jharkhand Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kalpana Vs the State of Karnataka

Amith Vs State by