Dismissed

Chandrahasa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2022CRL.P/8765/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench at Bengaluru dismissed a bail petition for a juvenile aged 17 charged with murder, conspiracy, and falling under Section 149 IPC by Section 302 IPC. The court held the specific overt act alleged and the heinous nature of the crime precluded leniency despite co-accused bail and custody duration, directing speedy trial disposal.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 439 CrPC was rejected.

Chandrahasa Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8765 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHANDRAHASA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS S/O SAVITHA R/AT BESIDE TANK CHIKKA MANDYA VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401 REP. BY HIS MOTHER SMT.SAVITHA

¶9

….PETITIONER

¶10

(BY KUM. RAKSHA KEERTHANA .K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA EAST POLICE STATION REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE-560 001

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.4/2021 (CR.NO.103/2020) OF MANDYA EAST P.S. MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 120B, 109, 302, 201

¶16

¶17

R/W 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE COURT, MANDYA DISTRICT. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner/Juvenile offender No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.103/2013 (S.C.No.4/2021) of Mandya East Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 109 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Mandya.

¶20

On 30.10.2020 at 5.50 p.m. there was some dispute between friend of accused No.2 and deceased Sumantha. It is further alleged that thereafter accused No.2 hatched a conspiracy along with accused No.6 to eliminate the deceased and he with the assistance of juvenile offenders 2 to

¶21

4 secured deadly weapons. On 30.10.2020 accused No.2 and juvenile offender No.1-petitioner and juvenile offender No.2 when deceased Sumanth was proceeding in motor cycle

¶22

¶23

bearing registration No.KA-11-EL-5919 near the house of Puttalingamma situated in 4^th cross, Basavanagudi, Mandya they have assaulted on his head, face with the help of iron long and dragger. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that accused No.2 assaulted by long while petitioner-juvenile offender No.1 assaulted by dragger and stabbed the deceased, while juvenile offender No.3 has thrown the chilly powder on the deceased. In this regard, a case came

¶24

to be registered. On the basis of the complaint the investigating officer has investigated the crime and submitted the charge sheet.

¶25

The petitioner has moved the regular bail petition before the learned sessions judge and his bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶26

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner/Juvenile offender

¶29

No.1 would contend that accused Nos.3 to 5 and juvenile offender Nos.2 and 3 were already granted bail by the concerned Courts and the present petitioner is also sailing on the same boat and hence, he ought to have been enlarged on bail. She would further contend that the juvenile offender was aged about 17 years as on the date of the alleged incident in 2020 and he is in custody for more than 2 years and there are no antecedents as against him. As such she would seek for admitting the petitioner/juvenile offender No.1 on regular bail.

¶30

Per contra learned HCGP would seriously object the bail petition contending that the present petitioner/juvenile offender No.1 has actively participated and there is specific overt-act alleged against him while against the other accused, no specific overt-act is alleged and hence, she would contend that in such a tender age the petitioner has committed such a heinous offence and hence, according to her he does not

¶31

¶32

deserve any leniency and prayed for rejection for the bail petition.

¶33

Having heard the arguments and perusing the

¶34

records, it is evident that it is accused No.2 and the juvenile offender No.1 the present petitioner who have infact assaulted the deceased Sumantha. It is argued that there was no motive

¶35

for deceased in committing the offence. However, the allegations of the prosecution disclose that the accused have also stabbed indiscriminately the deceased Sumantha on his abdomen. The post mortem report disclose that there were as many as 17 injuries on his body, while injury No.1 to 10 were said to have caused by long while injury No.11 to 17 were said to have been caused by the dragger. According to the prosecution accused No.1 was carrying long and he assaulted the deceased by long while present petitioner assaulted the deceased by dragger. There is specific overt-act alleged against the present petitioner. The post mortem report further disclose that death is due to chop and stab injuries caused to

¶36

¶37

the deceased. There is direct evidence as against present petitioner. Though it is submitted that the recovery at the instance of the other accused and they were granted bail, is not a ground to admit the present petitioner on bail since the overt-act alleged against him is serious and at this tender age he is involved in such a serious crime. Merely because he is in custody for last 2 years is not a ground for admitting on bail and at the most, the concerned Court can be directed for speedy disposal. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition being devoid of any merits does not survive for consideration. The concerned Court shall dispose of the matter and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is rejected .

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

NS CT:NR

Chandrahasa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrahasa 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

Vajramani a Vs the State of Karnataka

C v Raghavendra Vs State by

Smt Lakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sridhara @ Sridhara M P Vs State by Narasimharaja Police

Sampathkumar B N Vs State of Karnataka

Nayaz Pasha @ Nayaz Vs State of Karnataka