Dismissed

Ramesha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2022CRL.P/3490/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected the bail petition filed by an accused charged with murder. The court held that the filing of the charge sheet did not constitute a changed circumstance warranting bail in a serious offense involving joint liability under Section 34 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; trial court directed to expedite trial and conclude same on or before 31.12.2022.

Ramesha Vs State of Karnataka — 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 AUGUST, 2022 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3490/2022

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

RAMESHA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT V NAGENAHALLI 1^ST MAIN ROAD PATEL MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT 1^ST CROSS, R T NAGAR BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU -560 024 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRA KUMARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO H D KOTE P S HUNASURU

¶10

REPTD. BY GOVT PLEADER HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 (BY SRI ROHITH GOWDA, HCGP)

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

¶13

THIS CRL.P FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.337/2021 OF H.D.KOTE P.S.,MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.302 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn.) AND JMFC COURT AT H.D.KOTE IN C.C.NO.184/2022.

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard Sri. Chandra Kumare Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Rohith Gowda, learned High Court Government pleader for the respondent - State.

¶17

This is successive bail application filed by the petitioner seeking grant of bail.

¶18

3. Brief facts of the case are as under.

¶19

The charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner herein in respect of Cr.No.337/2021 of H.D. Kote Police. The column No.17 of the charge sheet reveals that the first accused wife had an illicit relationship with the deceased and in order to take revenge in that regard, accused No.1 and 2 have hatched a plan to take away the life

¶20

¶21

of the deceased. Accused No.1 had assured to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused No.2 and in that regard, he had also paid sum of Rs.10,000/- as advance. Thereafter, on 30.10.2021 they were waiting for Nagaraj to move on his motorcycle near Shariff colony. Around 8.30 pm., they had gone in a car bearing No.K.A.02/B-3441 and as soon as the deceased came on a motorcycle, the motorcycle was intercepted by both the accused persons and at that juncture, the present petitioner assaulted the deceased with club on his head. Before assaulting the deceased he had thrown chilly powder. Accused No.1 took a iron rod and assaulted the deceased on his head and thereby there was a severe injury on the head of the accused. Ultimately, Nagaraj breathed his last.

¶22

Based on the complaint averments, police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. Police have also invoked Section 34 of IPC.

¶23

Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now that the

¶24

¶25

charge sheet is filed, the continuation of the accused in the judicial custody is no longer warranted as the accused is in judicial custody since 9 months 9 days. He also pointed out that the matter does not require the custodial trial of the petitioner having regard to the fact that the petitioner is not having criminal antecedents and therefore, sought for grant of bail.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in 2005 (2) RCR (Crl.141) in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Haryana, in the Crl.Mis.P.35355/2004 decided on 25.01.2005, wherein the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held in para No.5 as under:

¶27

" 5. Ld. counsel for the accused-petitioner Sanjay Kumar argued that he is in custody since 3.11.2003. He did not cause any injury to the deceased. Injury inflicted by him on the person of Sunil is simple in nature and is on a non-vital part of the body. In these circumstances, he should be given the concession of bail. Ld. counsel also cited the case

¶28

¶29

of Om Parkash and others v. State of Haryana, 2003 (1) CCJ 550. It was a murder case under Section 302/307 IPC. No injury to the deceased was attributed to the petitioner, therein and the injury attributed to the petitioner was qua the complainant only. The petitioner was in custody for the last nine months. Bail was allowed to him. In Criminal Appeal No.772-DB of 2004 titled “Yashpal and others v. State of Haryana” Ram Roop-convict was allowed bail and it was stated that he had given lathi blow on the thigh of Smt. Sharbati. In Criminal Misc. No. 40089-M of 2003 titled “Suresh and another v. State of Haryana”, the petitioners were allowed bail as it was contended by their counsel that they had given simple injuries to the witnesses. It was a murder case under FIR No. 43 dated 26.3.2003 under Sections 302, 148 and 149 IPC."

¶30

Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail on the ground that when the prosecution has invoked Section 34 of the IPC., individual overt acts looses its significance and there cannot be isolation of the individual overt act insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. But, for the chilly powder was thrown on the deceased and assaulted him on the leg with the help

¶31

¶32

of a club and other parts of the body, deceased Nagaraj would not have fallen down from the motorcycle which had facilitated the first accused assaulting on him on the head with the iron rod. Therefore, prima-facie materials reveal that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

Perused the material on record meticulously in

¶34

the light of rival contention of the parties.

¶35

It is settled principles of law that requires no emphasis that whenever successive bail petition is filed, accused/petitioner is bound to make out a positive changed circumstances which would facilitate the petitioner to obtain an order of bail by resorting to judicial powers vested in this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶36

In the back drop of above legal principles, when the material on record is analyzed, Sri Chandra Kumare Gowda, learned counsel has vehemently contended that the filing of the charge sheet is the changed circumstance in the

¶37

¶38

case. He also pointed out that the individual overt act that has been alleged against the petitioner, is only with regard to assaulting the leg of the deceased with a club. However, he has stated that the charge sheet is now filed, there is no necessity of custodial trial and therefore, sought for grant of bail.

¶39

On close scrutiny of the materials on record, it is not only assault that has been made by the present petitioner to the deceased, but before the assault was made, he has thrown chilly powder on to the deceased, which made him into fall down from the motorcycle and thereafter the present petitioner has assaulted him with the club on his leg and other parts of the body. Thereafter first accused assaulted deceased with an iron rod on his head.

¶40

Material on record clearly shows that the police were able to recover the club at the instance of the voluntary statement of the accused No.2 who is the present petitioner.

¶41

¶42

Suffice to say, when the prosecution has invoked Section 34 of IPC, individual overt acts would loose its significance as rightly argued by prosecution.

¶43

It is settled principles of law that in a criminal case, each of the criminal case has to be appreciated depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case especially at the bail stage. As such the legal principles enunciated in the case of Sanjay Kumar supra, is of no avail in accepting the bail request.

¶44

Further, this Court, at the stage of considering the bail request, cannot hold a mini trial to assess the merit or demerit of the case. The gravity of offence alleged is also high and in the event of conviction offences alleged against accused may resulting life imprisonment or death. Suffice to say that the material on record, showing the individual overt act of the petitioner and also Investigating Agency having invoked Section 34 of the IPC, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out any positive

¶45

¶46

changed circumstances so as to accept the request made by him for grant of bail.

¶47

Hence, the following

¶48

ORDER

¶49

Petition is rejected.

¶50

It is needless to emphasize that the accused/petitioner is in custody since 9 months 9 days, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same positively on or before 31.12.2022.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Ramesha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesha v. State of Karnataka

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

M/S Lilly Labels Vs Sajawat Industries Limited

Sri Ravikumar Vs Sri C K Lavakumar

Karnataka Tamil Christian Welfare Association Vs Rev. Bernard Moras

Sri K S Satyanarayana Vs Sri Lingaiah

Smt.Sumithra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jagajeevan Ram Vidya Samsthe Vs Panchajanya Vidya Peeta Welfare Trust