Dismissed

V. Vishnu Devan @ Vishnu @ Pochi v. State of Karnataka by SHO

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2022CRL.P/3899/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition No.3899/2022 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail in a murder case under Sections 302, 341, 323 read with 34 IPC. Court rejected bail. The petitioner alleged lack of motive and delayed investigation, but the court found a prima facie case based on eyewitness accounts and recovery of a bloodstained knife, deeming the offence heinous.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking regular bail is rejected.

V. Vishnu Devan @ Vishnu @ Pochi Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3899/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

V. VISHNU DEVAN @ VISHNU @ POCHI, S/O C.K. VASUDEVAN, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.45, ADE COMPOUND, 80 FEET ROAD, THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU-560075. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI GIRISH B.N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, BYAPPANAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY GOVT. PLEADER, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.206/2021 OF BYAPPANAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 341, 323 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-20) BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.50866/2022 AND S.C.NO.445/2022.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.206/2021 of Byappanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 341, 323 read with 34 of IPC.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶19

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 14.11.2021 at about 9.00 p.m. when C.W.1 and his friend i.e., the victim, were going to have sprite near Byappanahalli VII Cross, this petitioner and accused No.2 abused and threatened the victim and when both of them went forward and were returning in the very same road, near Vigneshwara Store, this petitioner and accused No.2 with a common intention wrongfully restrained C.W.1 and the victim and accused No.2 fisted on the face of the victim and when both C.W.1 and the victim resisted the same, this petitioner holding his collar inflicted injury with knife on his face, eye brows, left hand, left

¶20

¶21

abdomen and chest and also inflicted injury on the right portion of the body, as a result he succumbed to the injuries.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the complaint, specific allegations are made against five persons, but charge-sheet is filed only against accused Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel submits that no action is taken against the other accused persons, who were there at the spot along with accused No.2 and the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that there was a CCTV at the scene of occurrence and the same has not been placed before the Court. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution mainly relies upon the statements of C.W.2 and C.W.3 and this petitioner is in custody from last eight months. The police have already completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet and no need of further custodial trial. The learned counsel submits that accused No.2 has already been granted bail. The learned counsel submits that there is no relationship between the victim and this petitioner and both of them are strangers and also there was no motive for committing the murder. The learned counsel submits that the grandmother of the petitioner passed away yesterday and today there is a cremation and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶23

¶24

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that C.W.2 and C.W.3 were there along with the accused at the time of the incident and they have witnessed the incident of inflicting injury by this petitioner and both of them are eye-witnesses to the incident. The learned counsel submits that their statements were recorded before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel submits that blood stained knife was recovered at the instance of the petitioner and the same was sent to FSL and FSL report is awaited. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and he is not entitled for bail.

¶25

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶26

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record, specific allegation against accused No.2 is that he fisted on the face of the victim, but specific overt-act allegation against this petitioner is that he inflicted injury with knife all over the body of the victim. The cause of death mentioned in the post mortem report is on account of multiple injuries sustained by the victim. The statement of C.W.2 and

¶27

¶28

C.W.3 is that they are the eye-witnesses to the incident and both

¶29

of them were there with the accused at the time of the incident. Apart from that, C.W.1 was also along with the victim and when this petitioner started to inflict injury with knife, he went and brought his other roommates and in the meanwhile, he was lying in the spot and that is the statement of C.W.1. The statements of C.W.2 and C.W.3 were recorded before the learned Magistrate that they are the eye-witnesses to the incident. Apart from that, the blood stained knife was recovered at the instance of the petitioner and the same is also seized and sent to FSL and report is awaited. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner herein and specific overt-act allegation is made against him by C.W.1 to C.W.3. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this petitioner is in custody from last eight months cannot be a ground to enlarge him on bail since heinous offence of murder has been committed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no motive to commit the murder. The said ground can be considered during the course of trial and not at this stage. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the grandmother of the petitioner has passed

¶30

¶31

away and there is cremation today and on the ground of cremation also, the petitioner cannot be released when he inflicted injury with knife, that too all over the body of the victim and cause of death is also on account of multiple injuries sustained by him. Hence, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶32

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶33

following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is rejected.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

V. Vishnu Devan @ Vishnu @ Pochi v. State of Karnataka by SHO

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Vishnu Devan @ Vishnu @ Pochi v. State of Karnataka by SHO

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

M N Sunil Vs the State of Karnataka

Syed Shabaj Vs Smt. Prema

Abdul Majeed Vs State of Karnataka

Devaraj @ Deva Vs State of Karnataka

Anukumar J v Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Ramashetty Pavan Kumar @ Pavan @ Pruthvi Vs the State of Karnataka