Allowed

P Yeshwanth v. the State by Kempapura Agrahara Police Station

Karnataka HC16 Aug 2022CRL.P/6931/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition seeking bail filed by an accused charged with murder and other offences. The petitioner argued his involvement was added late via complainant's further statement. The High Court found no prima facie material in early statements and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is released on bail on execution of personal bond for Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties subject to conditions preventing tampering with witnesses and ensuring appearance in court.

P Yeshwanth Vs the State by Kempapura… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6931/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

P.YESHWANTH S/O PUTTA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 20 YEAS NO.38, 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, ANANTHA NAGAR, BAPUJI NAGAR, BENGALURU 560026

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SHRI.VISHWANATH M.P., ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE BY KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PIN 560 001

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SHRI.VINAYAK V.S., HCGP.)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.42/2022 (C.C.NO.17333/2022) OF K.PR AGRAHARA P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 144, 147, 120B, 302, 323, 504 R/W 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 30^TH ACMM, BANGALORE.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that based on the complaint dated 11.03.2022 given by one Lakshmikant alleging that Surya and his brother Chandan and his friends made galata with Thomas and inflicted injury with long and dagger and committed murder, police have registered FIR against Surya and Chandan and also other three accused persons and investigated the matter and filed charge sheet and this petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.6. It is alleged that this petitioner has assaulted with hands and kicked the victim.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that this petitioner has been implicated only on recording of further statement of complainant on 14.03.2022. He also contend that the prosecution examined eyewitnesses before the learned

¶21

¶22

Magistrate on 13.03.2022 and none of these witnesses, under Section 164 statement, pointed out the very involvement of this petitioner in committing the crime and on the very next day the alleged further statement was recorded, wherein also an allegation is made that this petitioner assaulted with hands and kicked the victim. Counsel further contends that investigation has been completed and charge sheet is also filed and no prima facie materials are available against this petitioner and hence he may be enlarged on bail and there is no need of further custodial trial.

¶23

Per contra, learned high Court Government Pleader submits that though name of this petitioner was not found in 164 statement of witnesses, who have been examined before the learned Magistrate, based on further statement of complainant, this petitioner has been implicated as accused No.6 and he made further statement involving this petitioner and allegation is that he assaulted with hands and kicked the victim.

¶24

¶25

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶26

further submits that CCTV footage is also collected during the course of investigation and hence there is prima facie case against the petitioner.

¶27

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the complaint also no specific allegation is made against this petitioner and it is only an afterthought. He further submit that the further statement of complainant was recorded by implicating this petitioner.

¶28

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly complaint dated 11.03.2022, wherein complainant has not alleged anything about this petitioner, no doubt three other persons are included in the FIR and even assuming that Surya and Chandan have assaulted with other three persons, it is only five accused persons and this petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.6. It is also important to note that 164 statement of the witnesses have been recorded, wherein also name of this petitioner was not

¶29

¶30

found and the said 164 statement was recorded on 13.03.2022 and the further statement was recoded on 14.03.2022 and in the said statement only an allegation is that this petitioner assaulted with hands and kicked the victim. Having taken note of the material collected by the investigating officer, this Court does not find any prima facie material against the petitioner herein and only in further statement of complainant this petitioner has been implicated. Further, investigation has been completed and no need of further custodial trial having perused the material collected by the prosecution and hence, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner to enlarge him on bail with certain conditions.

¶31

In view of the above discussions, I pass the

¶32

following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶35

petitioner/accused No.6 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.42/2022 of Kempapura Agrahara

¶36

¶37

Police Station, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 120B, 302, 323, 504 read with 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

(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.

¶39

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

¶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

P Yeshwanth v. the State by Kempapura Agrahara Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Yeshwanth v. the State by Kempapura Agrahara Police Station

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

Riyaz S/O Noormohammad, Vs Dattatray S/O Bandopanth Patil

Husainsab Vs Smt Modinabi @ Fakrubi

Susheelavva Vs Shivananda

Mr Jahid @ Sohali Vs the State

Netra D/O Nagappa Hakari Vs the Divisional Controller

Nagaraj @ Naganna S/O Katteppa, Vs Samiullah S/O Majid Sab