Dismissed

Sri Sanjay v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2022CRL.P/6705/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka rejected the application. The court held that given the serious nature of the murder charge, multiple injuries sustained by the victim, and direct eyewitness evidence implicating the petitioner, the case was not fit for exercise of bail powers.

What did the court decide?

The petition for enlargement on bail was rejected.

Sri Sanjay Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6705/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SANJAY, S/O SRI VIJAYKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT KETHUPURA VILLAGE, BANNURU HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI KUMARASWAMY M, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANNURU POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 009. ...RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.418/2020 (CR.NO.159/2020) OF BANNUR P.S., MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 201, 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, T.NARASIPURA.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE 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.159/2020 of Bannur Police Station, Mysuru, for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 201 read with 149 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 is that on 12.09.2020 at around 9.45 p.m., the petitioner along with other accused persons committed the murder of one Siddaraju and injuries are inflicted with knife and machete, as a result, he succumbed to the injuries. The police have registered a case in Crime No.159/2020 and investigated the matter and filed the chargesheet for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 201 read with 149 of IPC.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.3 in the FIR and while filing the charge-sheet he has been arraigned as

¶21

accused No.1 and he is in custody from 17.09.2020. The

¶22

¶23

petitioner is aged about 25 years and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned counsel would submit that the complaint averment as well as the witnesses have not spoken anything about the specific overt-act allegation against the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that accused Nos.5, 6 and 7 have already been enlarged on bail and the petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶24

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that C.W.1 to C.W.6 are the eye witnesses to the incident. C.W.2 and C.W.4 also made 164 statement before the learned Magistrate, wherein specific statement was made that all of them have inflicted the injuries with deadly weapon like knife and machete. The learned counsel submits that on 17.09.2020, the mobile belonging to the petitioner was seized and at the instance of the petitioner, knife and machete are seized on 18.09.2020 immediately after his arrest. Hence, there are prima facie material against the petitioner.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

¶26

¶27

the respondent-State and having taken note of the material collected by the Investigating Officer, the incident was taken place on 12.09.2020 at 9.45 p.m. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons by forming an unlawful assembly came with chilly powder, knife, machete and stick near the house of C.W.3 and knocked the door of the house and the petitioner and accused No.4 dragged the victim and insisted to take back the complaint or otherwise they are going to take the life and when he refused to take back the complaint, all the accused persons pushed and pulled Siddaraju and dragged him and this petitioner tried to assault him with machete and when he tried to ward off the said blow, as a result, he sustained injuries to his hand. The allegation against the petitioner and accused No.3 is that both of them inflicted injury with the machete mercilessly all over the body and when C.W.5 and C.W.7 came to rescue, they poured chilly powder on them and thereafter when public gathered, they ran away from the place along with the weapons.

¶28

Having taken note of the post mortem report, there

¶29

are 13 injuries and cause of death is also on account of shock

¶30

and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained.

¶31

¶32

Having perused the material available on record, there are eye witnesses to the incident. C.W.1 to C.W.7 have spoken with regard to the presence of the petitioner and also inflicting of the injuries. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there are no specific overt-act allegation against the petitioner, but the fact that all of them came near the house of one Krishnegowda and dragged his son Siddaraju and thereafter when he refused to take back the complaint which was registered in Crime No.159/2020, inflicted injuries mercilessly with deadly weapons. The post mortem report discloses that he had sustained 13 injuries and also those injuries are multiple injuries, which resulted in the death of victim Siddaraju. When there are eye witnesses to the incident and specific overt-act allegation is made against the petitioner that he inflicted injury with machete, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no specific allegation against the petitioner cannot be accepted. The Court has to take note of the seriousness of the offence of murder and also inflicting 13 injuries with knife, machete and stick and it is nothing but blood thirsty in taking away the life and when there

¶33

¶34

are direct evidence against the petitioner, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶35

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶36

following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is rejected.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Sri Sanjay v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sanjay 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

Smt. Nagamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Salman Pasha @ Salman Vs State by

Mr Rateesh K Vs State by Bypanahalli Ps

Sri Murthy Vs the State by Periyapatna Police

Sri.Mir Mohammed Kazim Vs State by Vyalikaval P S

Sheik Barkath @ Bablu Vs the State of Karnataka