Dismissed

Kumar S v. State by Basaveshwaranagar P.S.

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2022CRL.P/2318/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected the sixth successive bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court held that no change in circumstances existed, noting strong corroboration by the deceased's family, pending witnesses, recovery of the weapon, and lack of merit in previous repetitive petitions.

What did the court decide?

The petition for enlargement on bail stands rejected; the petitioner remains in judicial custody.

Kumar S Vs State by Basaveshwaranagar P.S. — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2318 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Kumar S. S/o Srinvas Aged about 28 years Res. #32, Doddabidra kallu Nagasandra Post Bangalore 560073 ... Petitioner

¶8

( By Sri Balagangadhara D., Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

State by Basaveshwaranagar P.S Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor High CourtComplex, Bangalore-560001 ... Respondent

¶11

( By Sri Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

¶12

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to pass an order, enlarging the petitioner/accused No.5 on bail in SC No.1112/2017 (Crime No.72/2017) registered by the Basaveshwaranagara police station, pending on the CCH 60 at Bangalore for the offence punishable

¶13

Crl.P.No.2318/2022

¶14

¶15

under section 143, 147, 148, 114, 212, 427, 326, 120(b), 302, 307 r/w 149 of IPC to meet the ends of justice.

¶16

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, through Video Conferencing Hearing at High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking his enlargement on bail in S.C.No.1112/2017 (arising out of Crime No.72/2017) of the respondent – Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 212, 427, 326, 307, 302 and 120 (B) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶19

It is the contention of the petitioner as well the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner who is appearing through video conferencing further submits that the prosecution has examined CW-1 to CW-12, which includes material witnesses and eyewitnesses

¶20

Crl.P.No.2318/2022 3

¶21

also. But none of them have supported the case of the prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner is languishing in jail for more than five years, as such, in the said changed circumstance, the petitioner/accused deserves his enlargement on bail.

¶22

The respondent has not filed its statement of objection to the petition. However, the learned High Court Government Pleader who is appearing through video conferencing submits his oral objection and contends that there is no change in the circumstances. He submits that mother and grand mother of the deceased have strongly supported the case of the prosecution. Many other material witnesses including few eyewitnesses, doctor, mahazar witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution. He also submits that the petitioner is involved in other criminal offences also. The weapon is recovered at the instance of the petitioner. As such, when there are strong reasons to

¶23

Crl.P.No.2318/2022 4

¶24

continue him in the judicial custody, his successive bail petition cannot be entertained.

¶25

Admittedly, this is the sixth successive bail

¶26

petition of the petitioner. After rejection of his previous bail petition, he filed one more similar petition in Criminal Petition No.5722/2018, which came to be rejected on 06.12.2018 by this Court as devoid of merit. Subsequently, he filed Criminal Petition No.3831/2019 which came to be disposed of as not pressed on 02.08.2019. Thereafter he filed one more similar petition in Criminal Petition No.6852/2021, which also came to be disposed of as not pressed on 26.11.2021. Thus, at frequent intervals of time the present petitioner has been filing the repetitive similar petitions which have been either stood rejected as devoid of merit or disposed of as not pressed.

¶27

At present, the contention of the petitioner in the

¶28

form of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

¶29

Crl.P.No.2318/2022

¶30

¶31

several of the charge sheet witnesses examined have not supported the case of the prosecution. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that CW-1 to CW-12 have not supported the case of prosecution, however, the learned HCGP, without accepting the same, submits that the mother and grand mother of the deceased have strongly supported the case of prosecution, furthermore according to the learned HCGP there are many more witnesses yet to be examined by the prosecution including several of the material witnesses, eyewitnesses, doctor, mahazar witnesses and the Investigating Officers. Thus, it appears that there are still more witnesses to be examined by the prosecution.

¶32

Even for a moment assuming that some of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the case of prosecution, still by appreciating and analysing their evidence, prematurely this Court cannot arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences, as such, deserves to be enlarged on bail. This Court, at this stage,

¶33

Crl.P.No.2318/2022 6

¶34

cannot write a pre-judgment before conclusion of the trial by making any observation that there is no support to the case of prosecution in the examination of the witnesses. Moreover, when there are still more witnesses yet to be examined including eyewitnesses and the prosecution is also conducting the case contending that the recovery of the weapon which is called as 'long' was recovered at the instance of the petitioner, I am of the view that there are no change in the circumstance warranting enlargement of the petitioner/accused on bail.

¶35

Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.

¶36

SD/JUDGE

¶37

swk

Kumar S v. State by Basaveshwaranagar P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar S v. State by Basaveshwaranagar P.S.

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

Smt Tarabai Vs Sri. K N Lakshman Rao

Sri P Muniraju S/O Papaiah Vs Sri K N Lakshman Rao S/O Narasimha Rao Nallode

M/S Ariatex Garments Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Ganesh Tempo Service

Mr Vishnu Khatija Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H S Yashwanth Vs State of Karnataka

K. Narendra Kumar Sharma Vs Mr. Ramdip Kumar Gupta