Dismissed

Sandeep a v. the State

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2022CRL.P/5746/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a successive bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case under Section 302 IPC. The Court observed that previous rejection was based on direct evidence, recovery at the petitioner's house, and eyewitness testimony. It held that bail material must be tested at trial and the High Court cannot appreciate evidence to avoid usurping trial Court powers.

What did the court decide?

The bail petition was rejected and the trial was directed to be disposed of within three months.

Sandeep a Vs the State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5746/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SANDEEP A. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE ARMUGAM, R/A NO.18, 1^ST CROSS, VISHVESHWARA NAGAR, NEAR MANGALALAXMI TEMPLE SHAMPUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 045

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SHRI.SATYANARAYANA S CHALKE, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE REPT. BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU 560045 REPT. BY ITS THROUGH THE SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU 560001

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SHRI.SHANKAR H.S., HCGP)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.323/2019 OF DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 302 R/W SE. 201 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF 26^TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-20) IN S.C.NO.514/2020.

¶15

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT DHARWAD BENCH THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

This is a successive bail petition filed by the accused seeking regular bail. This Court earlier vide order dated 24.06.2021 in Criminal Petition No.4244/2021 rejected the bail petition giving reasons in paragraph No.5 that the case rests upon the direct evidence as well as the recovery and incident has taken place in the house of the petitioner himself and eyewitness to the incident is none other than wife of the petitioner. Apart from that recovery is also made and CWs.15 and 16 have given a statement that the petitioner had purchased the alcohol and consumed the same, which has also been witnessed by them.

¶20

Having considered the material available on record, the Court observed that same has to be tested in

¶21

¶22

trial. Learned counsel submits that already 11 witnesses have been examined and on perusal of the charge sheet 27 witnesses are cited. Learned counsel would also submit that the witnesses who have been examined before the trial Court have not supported the case of the prosecution and this Court sitting under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. cannot appreciate the material available before the Court or otherwise it amounts to usurping the power of the trial Court and only this Court can give direction to dispose of the matter as early as possible. Hence, no ground is made out to entertain the successive bail petition and I pass the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

i) The petition is rejected.

¶25

ii) Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within three months from today.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

Sandeep a v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep a v. the State

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

Sri.Imran Rice Mill Rep.by Sri.N.Liyakat Ali Khan Vs M/S Sahana Agencies

Sri Mallappa S/O Hanamantappa Gatti Vs Smt Kashavva W/O Mahadevappa Bajeri

The Branch Manager, Vs Chandrashekar S/O. Gurunath Revanki

Subramani Vs the State of Karnataka

Channavva Vs the Managing Director

State Bank of India Vs Sri Paramananda