Allowed

Sujith Kumar Swain v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2022CRL.P/3474/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka granted bail to a 24-year-old accused in a murder case. The court noted the main accused is the primary perpetrator, trial is delayed without charge framing, and conditions of bail ensure witness protection and preventing further offenses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail for Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties to履约 conditions regarding no new offenses and non-interference with witnesses.

Sujith Kumar Swain Vs State of Karnataka by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3474/2022

¶7

Between: Sujith Kumar Swain S/o Bhaskar Swain, Aged about 24 years, R/at C/o Hotel Royal Arcade Alalasandra, Yelahanka, Bengaluru-560064

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri.Ramsingh K, Advocate) And:

¶10

State of Karnataka by R.T.Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru-560032 Rep. by Government Pleader High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560001.

¶11

… Respondent

¶12

(By Sri.Vinayak V.S, HCGP)

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to release the petitioner on bail in S.C. No.782/2020 (C.C.No.7654/2020) Crime No.104/2020) of Respondent R.T.Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for alleged offence punishable Under Section

¶14

¶15

302 Read With Section 34 of Indian Penal Code pending on the file of the learned LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-63) Bengaluru.

¶16

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders through video conference in Kalaburagi Bench this day, the Court passed the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner being sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in S.C. No.782/2020 (C.C.No.7654/2020) Crime No.104/2020) of Respondent R.T.Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for offence punishable Under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant.

¶19

Heard Sri Ramsingh K., learned Counsel for

¶20

the petitioner and Sri Vinayak V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶22

that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He has

¶23

¶24

not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 10.05.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence. Even according to the prosecution, there was no intention on the part of this petitioner to cause the death of the deceased. The main accused is accused No.1. He stabbed the deceased repeatedly. Whereas, this petitioner said to have held the deceased. As per the chargesheet, deceased as well as accused were intoxicated. Under such circumstances, no motive could be attached to the present petitioner. If at all the incident had happened, it would be under grave provocation, as the deceased had tried to take away the money from the Hundi and talked ill about the God. This petitioner is implicated only on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.1. There is no recovery at the instance of this petitioner.

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel further stated that the petitioner has moved similar petition before this Court in Criminal Petition No.3616/2021 and the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move similar petition, if the trial is not commenced within a period of eight months. Inspite of that, the trial has not begun and charge is not framed. The trial in the case would take sufficiently long period of time. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶27

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. As per the post mortem report, there were as many as 10 injuries found on the dead

¶28

¶29

body. Knife used for commission of the offence and the blood stained clothes were jointly recovered at the instance of accused No.1 and 2. FSL report is also received. CWs.4 and 16 are the neighbours who have stated in their statement that they have heard noise from the house of the accused No.1, as accused No.1 was quarrelling with the deceased. Since FSL report is received during March-2022, trial in the matter could begin in no time. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶31

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶32

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶33

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for

the following:

R E A S O N S

Serious allegations are made against the

¶38

petitioner for having committed the offence. However, accused No.1 is the main accused. It is alleged that he stabbed the deceased with knife repeatedly on various parts of the body. It is alleged that petitioner was holding the deceased and thereafter he also stabbed the deceased on his back and other parts of the body. Even though, there are no eyewitnesses, the prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. However, even though petitioner has filed criminal petition seeking bail, in Criminal Petition No.3616/2021, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2021 wherein liberty was reserved with the petitioner to move similar petition if the trial has not commenced within 8 months. But, admittedly, till today charge is not yet framed and trial has not yet begun.

¶39

¶40

The copy of the order sheet produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner disclose that the order passed by this Court is produced before the trial Court. In spite of that no efforts are made to frame charges and to commence the trial. On many dates of hearing, accused are not being produced before the Court from the judicial custody. Under such circumstances, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment, as conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long period of time. Admittedly, petitioner is not having criminal antecedents. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶41

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶42

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed.

¶45

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.104/2020 of Respondent R.T. Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶46

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶47

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶48

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶49

In case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶50

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to

¶51

¶52

verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days.

¶53

The Trial Court on satisfaction may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

VNR

Sujith Kumar Swain v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujith Kumar Swain v. State of Karnataka by

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

Dr. Vijaya Hatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhagamma Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Chandrashekhar S/O Basavarajappa Vs the State of Karnataka and Another

Madankumar Vs the State by

Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Laxmanna @ Laxmappa Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.