A successive bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was filed challenging the earlier rejection. The High Court held that bail status of co-accused does not alter material facts and rejected the petition, directing trial for disposal.
The bail petition is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6877/2022
BETWEEN:
UMESH N. S/O. LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT A015 GRC, BRUNDAVAN APARTMENTS, ITI LAYOUT, MAYSORE ROAD, NAYANDAHALLI, BENGALURU-560039
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATA REDDY S.K., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU-562162, REPTD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU CITY – 560 001
…RESPONDENT
(SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.227/2021 (S.C.NO.182/2021) OF MADANAYAKANAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
2
SECTION 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506,341, 447, 302, 120B OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT DHARWAD BENCH, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the petitioner counsel and also the learned counsel for the State.
3
held him and also prevented him not to scream at the spot and this petitioner along with the accused No.3 inflicted injury with dragon at his neck and forehead and all over the body, as a result he succumbed to the injuries.
4
material is against this petitioner and hence, he may be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel also would submits that, even the charge is also not framed.
5
When this Court has given the reasoning while rejecting the earlier bail petition, merely because accused No.3 and 4 granted bail by the trial Court, as well as this Court and the order passed by this Court is not binding on this Court while considering the bail petition and the same has to be considered on material on record.
6
complaint within two hours of the incident a specific allegation is made by the complainant that this petitioner had inflicted the injury. No doubt, the counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the information was given in the hospital at Anupama Hospital that an assault was made by an unknown person i.e. within the span of 15-20 minutes of the incident and when there was no any delay in lodging the complaint and within two hours after taking injured to the hospital, complaint was given and when such being the case and when this Court has already considered the Statement of C.W.1 to C.W.3 and also the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim i.e. 13 injuries. Victim was brutally murdered using weapon and when such being the case merely granting of bail in favour of accused Nos.3 and 4 is not a ground to enlarge this petitioner and the same cannot be a changed circumstance and the Court has to take note of the material available on record against this
7
petitioner and the very contention that there are contradictions in the Statement also to be considered during the course of the trial and not at this juncture and hence, I do not find any merit to consider the successive bail petition filed by the petitioner in the absence of any change circumstances.
following:
ORDER
The bail petition is rejected.
The trial Court is directed to dispose of the
matter as early as possible.
Svh/-
Sd/JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether changes in bail status of co-accused constitute a ground to grant bail in a successive bail petition.
Whether contradictions in witness statements warrant reconsideration of bail rejection at this stage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Umesh N. S/o Late Nanjappa
State of Karnataka
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
