Dismissed

Sri Raviraj Shetty R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Oct 2022CRL.P/8277/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in a murder case, the High Court dismissed the petition, noting it was the third successive application. The court held that merely hostile eye witnesses do not warrant bail in a serious offense where the deceased is the complainant's wife and the trial is in progress.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Trial directed to conclude within nine months.

Sri Raviraj Shetty R Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8277/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI.RAVIRAJ SHETTY R. S/O LATE RAMANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.19, 1ST FLOOR MILK ROAD, HALASOORU BANGALORE - 560 008.

¶7

….PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. NAUSHAD PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALASURU POLICE STATION BANGALORE - 560 008 REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL, IN CRIME NO.373/2016, VIDE SC NO.312/2017, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION, 302 OF IPC, OF RESPONDENT HALASURU POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-46) AT BANGALORE.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1

¶18

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.373/2016 registered by Halasuru Police Station, pending on the file of XLV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-46) for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶19

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the materials on record.

¶20

The reports disclose that initially complaint was registered against unknown persons, but subsequently, petitioner was arrayed as an accused and charge sheet came to be submitted. The brother of the accused himself is the complainant in the instant case wherein it is stated that deceased-Suprita is the wife of the complainant's brother and she was aged about 29

¶21

¶22

years and her marriage was performed with the brother of the complainant by name Raviraj about 7 years back and he was working in Kargo at Devanahalli Air Port since last 20 years. The brother of the complainant Raviraj, his wife Suprita were staying in house bearing No.19, 1st Floor, Haalina Beedi, Halasuru since last one and a half year prior to the alleged offence. They had a daughter by name Rithu. Since last two years deceased was suffering from mental illness and was taking treatment in Manipal Hospital from Dr.Shivkumar. It is alleged that on 14.09.2016 at 8.40 p.m. Raviraj called the complainant through complainant's younger sister husband Ganesha's mobile and informed that Suprita was lying in the pool of blood in the kitchen and it is informed that her throat was cut and immediately complainant rushed to the spot and he found that deceased was lying the pool of blood and blood stained knife was also found there. On verification it is found that she has already died. Hence, he has lodged the complaint.

¶23

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶25

contend that C.Ws.9 and 15 are the eye witnesses and they have turned hostile and in the earlier petition he was given a liberty to file fresh bail petition after examination of C.Ws.9 and 15 and hence now he is before the Court.

¶26

Per contra learned HCGP for respondent-State would seriously object the bail petition contending that material objects were recovered at the instance of the petitioner.

¶27

On perusal of the records it is evident that this is the third successive bail petition filed by the petitioner. Initially he filed Crl.P.No.845/2018 and same was rejected on merits as per order dated 21.02.2018. Thereafter, he has filed Crl.P.No.493/2020 and the same was also rejected by order dated 15.10.2020. However, while rejecting the said bail petition liberty was given to petitioner to move the fresh bail petition after examination of C.Ws.9 and 15. Now it is asserted that

¶28

¶29

C.Ws.9 and 15 were examined and both have turned hostile. Admittedly, C.Ws.9 and 15 are eye witnesses and it is submitted that they are now turned hostile. They are the material witnesses. Merely because of the hostility of the eye witnesses does not give a right of acquittal to the accused. The hostility of the eye witnesses itself speak lot of story behind the screen. Admittedly, complainant is the brother of the present petitioner. Further it is also an admitted fact that the death is a homicidal one. Death has occurred in the house and all these aspects are required to be considered. The liberty was granted in the earlier bail petition does not mean that the present bail petition shall be allowed.

¶30

Looking into the facts and circumstances and

¶31

nature as well as gravity of the offence this is not a fit case wherein the discretion can be exercised. Anyhow trial is in progress and witnesses are being already examined, the petitioner can request the Court to

¶32

¶33

expedite the trial, so that the trial can be concluded at the earliest. Hence, petition being devoid of any merits does not survive for consideration. In view of the trial having been commenced and material witnesses having been examined the learned Session Judge is directed to conclude the trial within nine months from today and dispose of the matter.

¶34

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

GPG

Sri Raviraj Shetty R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Raviraj Shetty R 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

Jagadeesha Vs H P Manjegowda

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri. Jagadeesha

Nagesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh S Vs State of Karnataka

Shashikumar @ Jinke Vs State of Karnataka

Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka