Dismissed

Mr Naveena @ Subsidy Naveena v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2022CRL.P/5419/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court rejected a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding a murder charge. Holding that the offence was heinous and a prima facie case was established, the Court exercised its discretion against enlarging the petitioner on bail despite the investigation being complete.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.5419/2022 rejected; bail denied.

Mr Naveena @ Subsidy Naveena Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5419/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. NAVEENA @ SUBSIDY NAVEENA S/O. DEVARAJU N.N. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT NUGGEHALLI VILLAGE, NUGGEHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI PRAVARDHAN URS, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA STATION HOUSE OFFICER NUGGEHALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. … 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 CRIME NO.20/2022 (C.C.NO.493/2022) OF NUGGEHALLI POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 120-B READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC

¶14

¶15

ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.20/2022 of Nuggehalli Police Station, Hassan, for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶19

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

¶20

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

¶21

that accused Nos.1 and 2 were having extra marital relationship between them and the victim was coming in the way of their relationship and hence, in order to eliminate him, supari was given to accused Nos.3 and 4. Accordingly, on 31.01.2022, the accused Nos.3 and 4 implemented the supari entrusted by this petitioner and committed murder of the victim. Hence, case has

¶22

¶23

been registered and the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in order to connect accused Nos.1 and 2 that they were having extra marital relationship between them, no material is placed on record. Apart from that, with regard to the fact that supari to commit murder of the victim was given to accused Nos.3 and 4, no material is placed before the Court. The counsel also would submit that this petitioner is in custody from the date of arrest and investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and no need of further custodial trial. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that the phone of the accused No.2 was seized which was standing in the name of accused No.1 and he was using the very same sim card to talk to the accused No.1 continuously and the same was used only for the said purpose. He would also submit that, C.Ws.2 and 3, who are the children of the victim, made the statement that this

¶26

¶27

petitioner was frequently visiting the house of accused No.1. Apart from that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in the agricultural land and hence, the victim installed the CCTV in the house. He would further submit that telephonic conversation between accused Nos.1 and 2 was found frequently and they were doing whatsapp call with an intention that the same is not recorded and used the same to send message before making the whatsapp call. He also submits that accused No.2 has made frequent call to the accused Nos.3 and 4, to whom he entrusted the work of eliminating the victim and further submits that C.Ws.25 and 26 have given the statement that money was also transferred to the account of accused Nos.3 and 4 and in all, payment of Rs.2.5 lakhs was made, including the cash which was paid. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner herein and CDR report also discloses frequent contact between the accused Nos.1 and 2 as well as accused Nos.2 and 3 and accused Nos.2 to 4.

¶28

Having heard the respective counsel and also on

¶29

perusal of the material available on record, the incident has

¶30

¶31

taken place on 31.01.2022 and the phone was also seized at the instance of this petitioner, which was standing in the name of accused No.1. The CDR report also discloses that both of them were in constant touch with each other. The prosecution also mainly relied upon the CDR report with regard to the fact that accused No.2 was in constant touch with accused Nos.3 and 4. Apart from that, the prosecution mainly relied upon the statement of children of the victim i.e., C.Ws.2 and 3 with regard to frequent visit and they were also found in the agricultural land i.e., the accused Nos.1 and 2 and galata has taken place with regard to the said fact. The accusation made in the chargesheet that accused Nos.1 and 2 were having illicit relationship cannot be a ground to consider the bail petition and the same is a matter of trial and the witnesses have to be examined with regard to whether both of them were having illicit relationship with each other or not. When the case of the prosecution is that supari was given to accused Nos.3 and 4 and CDR report also discloses that this petitioner was in constant touch with accused Nos.3 and 4 and apart from that, the witnesses have spoken with regard to the amount transferred through phone-pe to the

¶32

¶33

phone number of accused Nos.3 and 4 on the instructions of this petitioner and all these materials connects this petitioner with regard to the accusation made against him.

¶34

When such being the case, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner since, investigation has been completed and material collected by the Investigating Officer discloses prima facie case against the petitioner herein. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation is completed and chargesheet is also filed and no need of further custodial trial and the same cannot be accepted for the reason that, it is a heinous offence of taking away the life of a person and the punishment is also either for life or for death. Hence, when a heinous offence of murder is committed, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

¶35

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is rejected.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Mr Naveena @ Subsidy Naveena v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Naveena @ Subsidy Naveena v. the State of Karnataka

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

Manjunatha Vs the State

Sri. Reddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Somachari Vs State of Karnataka

Dayananda Vs State of Karnataka

Anthony Raj. B, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Anjaneppa Vs the State through the Inspector of Police