Allowed

Sridhara @ Sridhara M P v. State by Narasimharaja Police

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2022CRL.P/4772/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted regular bail to the accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence. The court held that absent direct evidence or reliable CCTV footage, the case requires conditions to protect prosecution interests.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on regular bail on personal bond with one surety subject to conditions against criminal activities, witness tampering, and jurisdiction leave.

Sridhara @ Sridhara M P Vs State by… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4772/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRIDHARA @ SRIDHARA M.P S/O LATE PUTTAIAH M 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.4251/5, 5^TH CROSS GANDHI NAGARA MYSORE PIN CODE - 573115

¶8

….PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY NARASIMHARAJA POLICE MYSORE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BENGALURU – 560 009

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

¶16

THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.163/2021 (CR.NO.05/2021) OF NARASIMHARAJA P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 114, 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE AND ETC.,

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 under

¶20

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.5/2021

¶21

of Narashimaraja Police Station, Mysuru registered in S.C.No.163/2021 on the file of III Additional District and

¶22

Sessions Judge, Mysuru.

¶23

The brief factual matrix leading to the case is that the petitioner has taken an Auto on rent and he had grudge with the deceased – Mallikarjuna. It is also alleged that on 10.01.2021 at 5.30 p.m., near Hathu Janara Garadi Ramamandira Road, 3^rd Main, 4^th Cross, Gandhinagara,

¶24

¶25

Mysuru, the present petitioner along with other accused made a conspiracy of murdering the deceased – Mallikarjuna as he used to abuse under intoxicated state of mind and in furtherance of the said common intention, petitioner – accused No.1 ran over the Auto on the deceased, which has resulted in his death. Initially, it was thought that it was an accidental death. Subsequently, it is revealed that it is the petitioner, who has caused his death and as such, crime came to be registered. The petitioner was arrested on 13.01.2021 and was remanded to the judicial custody. The Investigating Officer, after investigation, has submitted a charge sheet against the present petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 114 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge and learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition filed by the petitioner, while allowed the bail petition filed by accused No.2. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶26

¶27

Heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel

¶28

for the petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the records.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

¶30

that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. He would also contend that CCTV footages report of the Forensic Science Laboratory discloses that vehicle is not identifiable and the present petitioner is only fixed on the alleged conspiracy statement said to have been given by accused No.2. He would further assert that there is no material evidence as against him and he is in custody for more than 1½ years. As such, he would seek for admitting him on regular bail.

¶31

Per contra , the learned HCGP would oppose the bail petition seriously contending that there are eye witnesses, who have seen the deceased quarrelling with the present

¶32

¶33

petitioner and hence, he would seek for rejection of the bail petition.

¶34

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, there are no eye witnesses and the prosecution is relying on CCTV footages in order to fix the vehicle. No doubt, the evidence of witnesses does disclose that alleged offending vehicle was taken on rent by the petitioner. But, the issue to be considered is, whether the said Auto was driven by the petitioner and he has run over the same on the deceased ?. The CCTV footages report of the Forensic Science Laboratory discloses the identity of the Auto cannot be made. Hence, CCTV footages do not assist the prosecution in any way.

¶35

Learned HCGP has placed reliance on the statement of Shakil Ahmmed, but it discloses that initially, the deceased

¶36

has boarded his vehicle and later on, he got down and at that

¶37

¶38

time, the petitioner came in his Auto and the deceased was found quarreling with him. It does not disclose that the deceased either travelled in the Auto of the petitioner or otherwise. Further, the prosecution has placed reliance on the statement of Vasanthamma and Radhakrishna and their statement is based on identity of the persons through CCTV footages and they said to have been identified the present petitioner driving the Auto. However, when the Forensic Science Laboratory Report itself discloses that identity of the vehicle cannot be made out, the statement of the witnesses cannot be accepted. At this juncture, the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The other petitioners are already enlarged on bail. There is no direct evidence as against the present petitioner except of the fact that he has taken the Auto on rent. He is in custody for more than 1½ years and trial is not yet begun. Looking to these facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, I do not find any

¶39

¶40

impediment for admitting the petitioner on regular bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted-out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, this petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is allowed . The petitioner/Accused No.1 is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.5/2021 of Narashimaraja Police Station, Mysuru, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC, which is pending on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in SC No.163/2021, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that,-

¶43

i) He shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities.

¶44

ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶45

¶46

iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without prior permission.

¶47

iv) He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.

¶48

v) He shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

NBM

Sridhara @ Sridhara M P v. State by Narasimharaja Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sridhara @ Sridhara M P v. State by Narasimharaja Police

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

Vajramani a Vs the State of Karnataka

C v Raghavendra Vs State by

Smt Lakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrahasa Vs State of Karnataka

Sampathkumar B N Vs State of Karnataka

Nayaz Pasha @ Nayaz Vs State of Karnataka