Allowed

Sri Prajwalraj .M @ Prajwal v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2022CRL.P/6098/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a murder case, relying on the principle of parity as co-accused were already released and noting the circumstantial evidence and belated witness statements.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, conditioned to not tamper witnesses, appear for hearings, and not leave jurisdiction.

Sri Prajwalraj .M @ Prajwal Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6098/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PRAJWALRAJ .M @ PRAJWAL, S/O MANTELINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT MUTTANAHALLI GRAMA, KODAGAHALLI POST, B.G. PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA-571 401.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI HARIPRASAD M B, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU – 560001. ...RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.83/2021 (CR.NO.37/2021) OF MANDYA WEST P.S., MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 323, 324, 302, 201 AND 149 OF IPC.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in S.C.No.83/2021 (Crime No.37/2021) of Mandya West Police Station, Mandya, for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 302, 201 read with 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 that a body was found on 14.01.2021 and hence, the case was registered under UDR on 16.01.2021, FIR was registered against the unknown persons. Accused Nos.3 and 4 were apprehended on 31.01.2021 and they gave the confession statement and based on the said confession statement, the police investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against four persons and during the course of investigation and while filing the chargesheet, one more person was arraigned as accused No.5 from whom the motorcycle belonging to the deceased was recovered

¶21

¶22

and he has been enlarged on bail only on the ground that he

¶23

only took the motorcycle from the place where it was parked.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶25

vehemently contend that the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence and this petitioner and accused No.4 were apprehended and voluntary statement was recorded. The case of the prosecution is that C.W.2 is an eye-witnesses and his statement was recorded on 25.02.2021 and further statement was recorded on 07.03.2021 and statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 12.04.2021 belatedly. The learned counsel submits that no recovery was made at the instance of the petitioner and this Court cannot consider the belated statement of C.W.2 as prima facie material to come to a conclusion that this petitioner was indulged in committing the offence. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that in Crl.P.No.4596/2021 c/w Crl.P.No.4586/2021, this Court already granted bail in favor of accused No.1 and 4 in coming to the conclusion that C.W.2 statement, which has been recorded belatedly cannot be a ground to continue this petitioner in custody. There was a delay in recording the statement of C.W.2

¶26

¶27

and also 164 statement. Hence, this petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.

¶28

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the prosecution relies upon the statement of C.W.2 and C.W.2 had informed the owner i.e., C.W.30 but he had not given any complaint and hence this Court exercised the discretion in favour of accused Nos.1 and 4.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶30

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record, the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution is mainly concentrating on the statement of C.W.2 and C.W.2 has not given the complaint immediately, though he claims that he is an alleged witness and his statement was recorded belatedly and his further statement was recorded in the month of March 2021 and 164 statement was recorded in the month of April 2021. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration and when the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence and when there was a delay in

¶31

¶32

recording the statement, further statement and 164 statement of C.W.2, the matter has to be tested during the course of trial with regard to the involvement of the petitioner. This Court has already enlarged accused Nos.1 and 4 on bail, who are similarly placed and this petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶33

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶34

following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with S.C.No.83/2021 (Crime No.37/2021) of Mandya West Police Station, Mandya, for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324, 302, 201 read with 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶37

(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶38

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶39

¶40

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶41

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sri Prajwalraj .M @ Prajwal v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prajwalraj .M @ Prajwal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Arundathi Poly Clinic and Diagnostics Vs the State Appropriate Authority (Saa)

Mr.Yasin Vs the State of Karnataka

K. N. Krishnegowda Vs R. Pallavi

Neelappa Agadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Balaji C Vs State of Karnataka