Allowed

State of Karnataka v. K.P.Harish

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2022CRL.P/250/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal petitions filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. It set aside the trial court's bail orders granting release to accused persons in murder cases. The High Court held the trial court failed to apply judicial mind, ignored the gravity of the offence, and relied on capricious reasons without waiting for the FSL report.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 09.09.2020 granting bail to the respondents in the respective criminal cases were set aside.

State of Karnataka Vs K.P.Harish — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.250/2021

¶7

CONNECTED WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NOS.260/2021, 261/2021, 299/2021

¶9

In Crl.P.No.250/2021

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KERAGODU POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001

¶12

… PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

¶14

AND:

¶15

K.P.HARISH S/O PUTTASWAMY K M AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O S.I. KODIHALLI KERAGODU HOBLI MANDYA 574101

¶16

RAGHU @ RAKESH S/O B RAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O LIG 250, HEBBALA 1^ST STAGE, LAKSHMIKANTHANAGARA MYSURU 570001

¶17

¶18

YASHAVANTH G S S/O C SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/O B GOWDAGERE VILALGE KEREGODU HOBLI MANDYA 574101

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2020 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.503/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, GRANTING BAIL TO THE ACCUSED NOS.1, 2 AND 7 - RESPONDENTS IN CR.NO.138/2020 OF KERAGODU POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND CANCEL THE SAID ORDER OF BAIL.

¶22

In Crl.P.No.260/2021

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KERAGODU POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001

¶25

… PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

¶27

AND:

¶28

B.S.BIMESH S/O SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O BEVINAHALLI MANDYA – 571 401

¶29

… RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)

¶31

¶32

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2020 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.553/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, GRANTING BAIL TO THE ACCUSED - RESPONDENT IN CR.NO.138/2020 OF KERAGODU POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND CANCEL THE SAID ORDER OF BAIL.

¶33

In Crl.P.No.261/2021

¶34

BETWEEN:

¶35

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KERAGODU POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001

¶36

… PETITIONER

¶37

(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

¶38

AND:

¶39

MAHESHKUMAR K.P. @ MAHESH S/O PUTTASWAMY K.M. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶40

MANJU, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶41

BOTH ARE R/O S.I. KODIHALLI KERAGODU HOBLI MANDYA – 571 401

¶42

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)

¶43

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2020 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.493/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, GRANTING BAIL TO THE ACCUSED - RESPONDENT IN

¶44

¶45

CR.NO.138/2020 OF KERAGODU POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND CANCEL THE SAID ORDER OF BAIL.

¶46

In Crl.P.No.299/2021

¶47

BETWEEN:

¶48

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KERAGODU POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001

¶49

… PETITIONER

¶50

(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

¶51

AND:

¶52

CHANDAN K.P. @ CHANDANKUMAR S/O K.S.PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O S.I.KODIHALLI KEREGODU HOBLI MANDYA – 571 401

¶53

… RESPONDENT

¶54

(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)

¶55

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2020 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.525/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, GRANTING BAIL TO THE ACCUSED No.6 - RESPONDENT IN CR.NO.138/2020 OF KERAGODU POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND CANCEL THE SAID ORDER OF BAIL.

¶56

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

¶57

¶58

O R D E R

¶59

These petitions are filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl. Mis. Nos.503/2020, 553/2020, 493/2020, 252/2020 granting bail to the respondents herein respectively in Cr.No.138/2020 of Keragodu police station for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶60

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners-State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondentsin all the matters.

¶61

The factual matrix of the case is that the

¶62

respondentshave been arraigned as accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the aforesaid cases for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. An allegation against these respondents is that the respondents along with the other accused persons committed murder of one Byra who was also an accused in Cr.No.139/2020 wherein an allegation is made against him that in the absence of parents of minor victim girl, subjected her for sexual harassment and the same came to

¶63

¶64

know when the victim girl was crying while urinating and hence, they were having ill-will against the deceased and all of them conspired each other and committed murder of the said Byra. The respondents herein have approached the Trial Court in the aforesaid respective Crl. Misc. Cases and the Trial Court during the crime stage allowed the bail petition coming to the conclusion that there was no previous enmity between the deceased, there was mob, there must be sudden provocation because of the deceased said to have sexually assaulted 7 year old girl and taking into consideration of these respondents are in JC for more than one month, custodial interrogation of these respondents may not be required and hence, granted bail to them.

¶65

Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the present petitions are filed by the State contending that the Trial Court has committed an error in entertaining the bail petitions during the crime stage ignoring the seriousness of the offences alleged against them. The learned Judge has committed an error in granting bail to the respondents herein when there is an overt act allegation of committing murder against them. The

¶66

¶67

counsel for the State would submit that the blood stain cloth of the accused Nos.2 and 5 were seized and the same was sent to the FSL and even without considering the FSL report, the learned Judge has proceeded to pass an order only coming to the conclusion that they were in custody for more than one month and not assigned any valid reason and the reason assigned also capricious in nature and it requires interference of this Court. He further submits that FSL report is received and charge sheet is also filed and the mother of the deceased also supported the case of the prosecution since she has witnessed all these persons taking the deceased.

¶68

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence and there are no eye-witness to the incident and apart from that it was a mob incident as alleged by the prosecution. The trial Judge in paragraph 17 has assigned the reason while enlarging the petitioners on bail and hence, prayed to allow the petitions.

¶69

¶70

Having heard the respective counsel and also on

¶71

perusal of the documents on record, it is appropriate to extract the paragraph 17 of the order of the trial Judge which reads as follows:

¶72

“17. I have gone through the judgments relied upon by learned PP and also I have gone through the facts of the present case and the petition averments. In the present case, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for petitioners (in Crl. Misc. No.493 and 503 of 2020), there was no previous enmity against the deceased, there was mob, there must be sudden provocation because of the deceased said to have sexually assaulted 7 year old child, taking into consideration of these petitioners are in JC for more than one month, custodial interrogation of these petitioners may not be required, further all these petitioners are the residents of Mandya Taluk, Keragodu Hobli, their presence can be secured during investigation, apprehension of the prosecution can be resolved by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, these petitioners are entitled to enlarge on bail”

¶73

Having read the said order, the Trial Court while

¶74

exercising the discretion comes to the conclusion that there was no previous enmity against the deceased and the very reasoning is against the case of the prosecution and the prosecution case is that the deceased committed an offence against minor girl who was aged about 7 years, the Trial Court noted that there must be sudden provocation for sexual assault to the minor girl and

¶75

¶76

this reasoning also at the stage of crime is nothing but a capricious as contended by the State and also reasoning given by the Trial Court that the respondents are in JC for more than one month is not a ground to enlarge them on bail when the offence of murder is alleged against them and the said reasoning is not a sound reason for enlarging them on bail. Apart from that the Trial Court enlarged the respondents on bail at the stage of crime without waiting the FSL report. Hence, the trial Judge has not applied his judicious mind while granting the bail to the respondents herein who have committed the murder having illwill against the deceased who also the accused in a case of subjecting the minor daughter of accused No.3 for sexual assault and all these reasons given by the Trial Court is nothing but a perversity in passing an order and exercising the discretion and hence, the very submission of the learned HCGP is clear that the Trial Court has committed an error in enlarging the respondents on bail during the crime stage when there is a heinous offence of committing murder.

¶77

The Apex Court in the case of RAMESH BHAVAN

¶78

RATHOD VS VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA (KOLI)

¶79

¶80

AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 held that whether order granting bail is a precedent is a matter for future adjudication if and when application for bail is moved on grounds of parity and apart from that the Apex Court held that the Court has to look into the seriousness and gravity of offences committed and severity of punishment in the even of conviction, failure of High Court to consider while granting bail and in the absence of reasons also the order of granting bail in the present case held perverse and set aside the order of granting bail. It is further observed that necessity of recording reasons for grant or denial of bail though the Court considering bail application does not need to launch into detailed evaluation of facts on merits since criminal trail is still to take place, yet court granting bail cannot be oblivious of its duty to apply judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail and further observed that mandatory duty of the court to record reasons when granting bail and grant of bail is a matter involving exercise of judicial discretion and judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail as in case of any other discretion which is vested in court as judicial institution, is not unstructured and duty to record reasons is

¶81

¶82

significant safeguard which ensures that discretion which is entrusted to court is exercised in judicious manner and recording of reasons in judicial order ensures that thought process underlying order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice thus, bail order which does not contain reasons for prima facie concluding that bail should be granted is liable to be set aside for non-application of mind.

¶83

The learned HCGP also relied upon the reportable judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HARJIT SINGH vs INDERPREET SINGH @ INDER AND ANOTHER IN CRL.A.NO.883/2021 DATED 24.08.2021 and brought to the

¶84

notice paragraph 17 wherein also the Apex Court held with regard to the consideration of the bail application and relevant factors.

¶85

Having considering the judgments referred supra, it is clear that the Trial Court has not applied its judicious mind while granting bail at the stage of crime and also not considered the seriousness of the offence and to wait for FSL report and the

¶86

¶87

reasons assigned also capricious in nature and hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶88

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶89

following:

¶90

ORDER

¶91

The petitions are allowed. Consequently, the order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in Crl. Mis. Nos.503/2020, 553/2020, 493/2020, 252/2020 granting bail to the respondents herein respectively in Cr.No.138/2020 of Keragodu police station for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby set aside.

¶92

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Presiding Officer, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya and if the said Presiding Officer is transferred, communicate the same to her where she is working at present.

¶93

Sd/JUDGE

¶94

State of Karnataka v. K.P.Harish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. K.P.Harish

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

Sri Mohammed Zaid Vs State by

Gangadhara @ Gangadharappa Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs G. Ningappa Nishani Mallappa @ G.N.Mallappa

The State of Karnataka Vs Ajith T

State of Karnataka Vs Krishnegowda a N

State of Karnataka Vs Chandan K.P. @ Chandankumar