Allowed

Nagaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Oct 2022CRL.P/9245/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail petition for Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in a murder case. Finding no substantial evidence that they instigated the offence and noting Accused No. 1 remained in custody, the court released the petitioners on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Accused Nos. 2 and 3 enlarged on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety, subject to conditions regarding conduct, witness tampering, jurisdiction, and court

Nagaraju Vs the 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.9245/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

NAGARAJU, S/O GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶7

RAJAMMA, W/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT, NEHARU NAGARA, BELUR TOWN, BELU, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115.

¶8

….PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H., FOR SRI.CHIRAG C., ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BELUR POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 1.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPLICATION AND RELEASE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.138/2022 OF BELUR POLICE STATION HASSAN FOR

¶15

¶16

THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 109 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIVISION) CJM COURT, BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular

¶20

bail in Crime No.138/2022 registered by Belur Police Station, pending on the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM Court, Belur, Hassan District for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 109 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶21

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

¶22

The complainant Sri.Gangadharappa has set

¶23

the law in motion by lodging the complaint. Deceased Ashwini is the daughter of Annapoorna, who is the sister of complainant. She was married to accused No.1 about 16 years back out of love and it was an inter-caste

¶24

¶25

marriage. They had a daughter aged about 15 years and son aged about 7 years. It is also alleged that petitioners used to instigate accused No.1 to subject the deceased to ill-treatment since she belong to difference caste. Being fed up with the ill-treatment deceased came out of the house and has stayed in a rented house belonging to one Bhagya along with her daughter and she was working in medical shop. After few days accused No.1 again joined her and he was staying along with her. Deceased has also filed criminal case and maintenance case against accused No.1 regarding harassment and for maintenance. It is also alleged that accused No.1 had extra marital relationship with one Heena who was working in his medical shop. As per the case of the prosecution accused No.1 was pestering the deceased to withdraw the cases against him but she refused to do so. She wanted to watch for few days further so as to ascertain whether accused No.1 has improved his conduct or not. Then accused No.1 in consultation with present petitioners

¶26

¶27

decided to eliminate the deceased. On 20.07.2022 accused No.1 was in his house and at 1.30 p.m. deceased returned to her house and accused put on the speakers in high volume and also put on the fan and then indiscriminately assaulted the deceased by knife by slitting her neck and also stabber her indiscriminately. As a result she succumbed because of the injuries. Thereafter, he locked the house and went away on his bike and the owner Bhagya has seen him going out of the house. Subsequently at 4.30 pm deceased's daughter returned and she found that her mother was murdered. In this regard complainant has lodged a complaint against the present petitioner as well as one Heena and accused No.1. The case was registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 109 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶28

The petitioners have approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking regular bail and the learned

¶29

¶30

Session Judge has rejected the bail application. Hence, they are before this Court.

¶31

On perusal of the records and even the statement of eye witness Bhagya it is evident that deceased was residing independently and present petitioners were not at all residing with her. Further the records discloses that as on the date of commission of offence the petitioners were not present in the said house. The allegation of the prosecution itself discloses that it is accused No.1 who was staying with deceased and he alone pestering the deceased to withdraw the cases lodged against him, which she did not accept. Prosecution allegation further discloses that on 20.07.2022 between 1.30 pm to 2.30 pm accused No.1 has caused the death of the deceased and then locked the house and went away on his motor bike and this aspect was seen by the owner Bhagya. Hence, it is evident that the entire allegations are directed against No.1. The present petitioners were arrayed as accused

¶32

¶33

Nos.2 and 3. It is asserted that they have instigated and abated accused No.1 in causing the death of deceasedAshwini. But, except the confessional statement of accused No.1 there is no other material evidence placed to show that the present petitioners have instigated or abated accused No.1 in committing the offence. It is also submitted that charge sheet has been now laid down and accused No.4 is not sent for trial. The present petitioners have not played any active role as per the case of the prosecution in commission of the offence and entire allegations are directed against accused No.1 who is in custody. Looking to these facts and circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioners on bail as their presence is no more required by the investigation officer. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶34

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petition is allowed . The petitioners/Accused

¶37

Nos.2 and 3 are directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.138/2022 of Belur Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 109 and read with Section 34 of IPC, which is pending on the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM Court, Belur, Hassan District on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned

¶38

Court, subject to the following conditions that,-

¶39

(i) They shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities

¶40

(ii) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶41

(iii) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without prior permission

¶42

(iv) They shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.

¶43

¶44

(v) They shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

GPG

Nagaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraju 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

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