High Court of Karnataka on a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., upheld rejection citing Kumer Singh. Court held individual roles irrelevant in unlawful assembly with common object to kill; prima facie case existed formurder and grievous injury.
Petition for enlarging on bail rejected; accused remain in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2621/2022
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE R/AT LINGAYATH STREET, KOTHALAVADI VILLAGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRIT 571123. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SRINIVASA D.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHAMARAJANAGARA RURAL POLICE , REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.2908/2021 (CR.NO.112/2021) OF CHAMARAJANAGAR RURAL P.S., CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 504, 302, 307, 114 READ
2
WITH 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT CHAMARAJANAGAR.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioners in C.C.No.2908/2021 (Crime No.112/2021) of Chamarajanagar Rural Police Station, Chamarajanagar District, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 302, 307, 114 read with 34 of IPC.
that there was a civil dispute between the parties and when the victim and injured questioned the very act of these two petitioners when they were cutting the fencing, both of them with an intention to take away the life of the victim and also injured, inflicted injury with machete. The specific allegation against accused No.2 is that he held him and made him to fall on the ground and facilitated accused No.1 to inflict injury and apart
3
from that, he also inflicted injury with machete on the hand of the injured eye-witness. As a result, caused bone deep injury and hence case has been registered and the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet.
4
prima facie material against the petitioners. The cause of death is also on account of head injury. C.W.4 Manjunath also sustained grievous injury and when there is direct evidence against the petitioners herein, the contradictions found in 164 and 161 statements cannot be considered at this stage and hence there is a prima facie case against the petitioners.
and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record, specific overt-act allegation is made against both the petitioners. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that accused No.1 only inflicted injury with machete and accused No.2 has not inflicted any injury on the victim and only allegation against him is that he inflicted injury with machete on the injured and hence they may be enlarged on bail. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the Apex Court in the judgment in the case of KUMER SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 CRL.L.J. 4244 has categorically held that the Court at the time of considering bail petition, individual role of the accused is not required to be considered when they are alleged to have
5
been the part of the unlawful assembly and shared common object. In the case on hand, accused Ns.1 and 2 shared common intention and inflicted injury with deadly weapon, as a result, the victim succumbed to injures. Apart from that, the allegation against accused No.2 is that he inflicted injury with machete as a result, injured eye-witness also sustained injuries. When there is a direct evidence against the petitioners, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners.
following:
ORDER
The petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
MD
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to accused members of an unlawful assembly charged with murder where the Apex Court held individual roles need not be considered.
Whether contradictions between Section 164 and Section 161 statements are fatal for initial bail when there is prima facie material for offence under Section 302 IPC.
Whether applicants sharing common intention and inflicting injury with deadly weapon constitute a fit case for bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kumer Singh v. State of Rajasthan and AnotherFollowed¶31
2021 CRL.L.J. 4244
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Mallikarjunappa
Sri Malaimadappa
State of Karnataka
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
