Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar Rai v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2022CRL.P/6740/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC for an accused charged with murder under Section 302/34 IPC, the High Court rejected the plea. The court held that long pendency of trial and bail granted to a co-accused are insufficient grounds when specific overt acts of inflicting injuries on a vital part are alleged. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within one year.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.6740/2022 is rejected by the High Court.

Rajesh Kumar Rai Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6740/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

RAJESH KUMAR RAI S/O. BOLAR RAI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT # 81/, JMJ NIWAS, I FLOOR, II MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, MOTHI NAGAR, ADIKABIR ASHRAM ROAD, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032 (IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) (SRI. RAM SINGH K., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER) AND:

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY R.T.NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560032, REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001

¶9

…RESPONDENT

¶10

(SRI. SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR RESPONDENT)

¶11

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.104/2020 (C.C.NO.7654/2020 (S.C.NO.782/2020)) OF

¶12

¶13

R.T.NAGAR P.S. BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHBLE UNDER SECTION 302 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63) BANGALORE.

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard the petitioner counsel and also the counsel appearing for the State.

¶17

The factual matrix of the case of the

¶18

prosecution is that, this petitioner along with accused No.2 and also the deceased were consuming alcohol in the house of the accused No.1 and when the victim made an attempt to take the amount which is kept in front of the Deity to consume the alcohol, at that time, this petitioner took out the knife and inflicted injuries and as a result the injured succumbed to the injuries

¶19

¶20

and hence case has been registered and invested the matter the filed the charge-sheet.

¶21

The counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶22

submits that, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already granted bail in favour of the accused No.2 and this petitioner also similarly placed and hence, he may be enlarged on bail. The counsel also would submits that, he is in custody since last two years four months and the trial takes long time and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶23

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

¶24

the State would submits that, earlier this petitioner approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.3621/2021 and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution and the counsel would submits that now the FSL report is also received and the weapon which was used for committing the murder was seized and the same was

¶25

¶26

sent to the FSL and the FSL report is also positive and there is a sound circumstances against the petitioner herein.

¶27

5. Having heard the respective counsel and also

¶28

on perusal of the order passed in the Criminal Petition No.3474/2022, while granting bail to accused No.2 it is observed that, no efforts are made to frame the charges to commence the trial and he is in custody and the trial will take long period and hence, he is admitted to bail and in the case on hand in respect of the petitioner is concerned specific overt act allegations are made against him that he mercilessly inflicted the injuries, but only allegation against accused No.2 at the first instance that he was facilitated that the accused No.1 to inflict the injury and no doubt in the further accusation made allegation against him that he also snatched the knife and inflected the injury, but specific overt act allegation against this petitioner is that he inflicted injury on the

¶29

¶30

vital part of the victim and there are 13 injuries and counsel would submits that, there was no any intention to take away the life and the said submission cannot be accepted at this stage and the same is a matter of trial and when the 13 injuries are inflicted with the knife and that too on the vital part the same cannot be considered at this juncture regarding intention. The very contention of the petitioner that accused No.2 has already been granted bail and he may also be granted bail cannot be accepted and the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench is not a precedent to this Court and each facts of the case and also the allegations of overt act has to be taken note of and that too in a case of taking of a life, taking of a time for trail is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The other contention that he is in the custody from two years four months is also not a ground, when an heinous offence of murder is committed by inflicting the injury on the vital apart and

¶31

¶32

hence, I do not find any reasons to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The bail petition is rejected.

¶35

The trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of one year.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Svh

Rajesh Kumar Rai v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Rai 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

Sharada W/O. Giriya Naik, Vs Jananeshwar Kemu Gaonkar

Sudha W/O Nagesh Jadhav, Vs Manjunath Basappa Sambargi

The Oriental Ins. Co.Ltd. Vs Gangappa S/O : Chanapa Narasannavar

Raziya Begum Vs Arjuna G Ganachari

Ravikumar M @ Ravikumar Nayak Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shiva Kumar Vs State of Karnataka