Allowed

Sri. Hemanth Kumar. T @ Tony v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2022CRL.P/9298/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition sought enlargement on bail for two accused charged with murder and culpable homicide attempting. The High Court, noting the case relies on circumstantial evidence with no eye witnesses and the investigation being concluded, allowed the bail petition by imposing strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with witnesses, leaving jurisdiction, and similar

Sri. Hemanth Kumar. T @ Tony Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9298 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR.T

¶9

@ TONY, S/O THIRUMALAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS AMBULANCE DRIVER, R/AT. HULLURAPPA HOUSE, ARKAVATHINAGARA SEEGEHALLI GATE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE CITY.

¶10

PERMANENT ADDRESS BEHIND SARITHA BAR CHANNENAHALLI VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALURU CITY.

¶11

MADHUSUDHAN @ MADHU @ ONTI BEEJA S/O MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT. BETTEGOWDA HOUSE, OPP. TO MUTTAYASWAMY TEMPLE, KADABAGERE VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶12

¶13

PERMANENT ADDRESS CHOWDANAKUPPE VILLAGE, HULIYURU DURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TAMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶14

… PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. GIRISH D.S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION TAVAREKERE, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE.

¶18

… RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON THE BAIL IN CR.NO.91/2022 OF TAVAREKER P.S., RAMANGARA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302,201 R/W 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN S.C.NO.50/2022 AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1

¶24

and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for enlarging them on

¶25

bail in Crime No.91/2022 of Tavarekere Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 R/w

¶26

¶27

Section 149 of IPC registered in S.C No.50/2022 on the file

¶28

of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagaram.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶30

learned HCGP for State. Perused the records.

¶31

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

¶32

that the complainant is the wife of the deceased. She was married to deceased about six years back and earlier her

¶33

husband was doing bar bending work and now he is attending factory work. According to her, on 24.02.2022, her husband returned from the office and at about 9.00 p.m., he went outside on his TVS Jupiter two wheeler bearing No.KA-41-ER-5593 and he did not return. On 25.02.2022, she got information that her husband died near Yelachaguppe and immediately she went there along with her father-in-law and found that her husband was dead. On enquiry, she got information from one Lakshmana that on the earlier night at 9.30 p.m. the deceased was consuming liquor with the present petitioners and other accused and there was a galata between them as the deceased was using some

¶34

¶35

unparliamentary word regarding character of the wife of accused No.1 and at that time, Lakshmana pacified the dispute.

¶36

It is alleged that later on, her husband was found dead and she suspected the involvement of the present petitioners and lodged the complaint. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer apprehended the present petitioners and other accused and submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 149 of IPC after investigation.

¶37

The allegations of the prosecution disclose that deceased has abused petitioner No.1 regarding the character of his wife and in this regard the dispute has taken place while they were consuming the liquor and later on CWs-3 and 4 have pacified the matter and send them. However, the present petitioners along with other accused including accused No.6 returned to the spot, wherein, they found that the deceased was consuming the liquor and lifted him in their car and took him to a remote area,

¶38

¶39

wherein, he was allowed to go and then they knocked him by the car and ran over the car causing his death and show that, as if he died in the accident they caused damage to his two wheeler also.

¶40

The Investigating Officer on the basis of confessional statement of the present petitioners and other accused and on circumstantial evidence has submitted the charge sheet. The petitioners have moved a regular bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge and learned Sessions Judge has rejected their bail petition. Hence, petitioners are before this Court.

¶41

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, the prosecution has alleged that the petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC. Admittedly, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, as there are no eye witnesses and entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence of CWs-3 and 4, who are shown as a last seen witnesses. But, however, on perusal of their statements it disclose that they are not the last seen witnesses as their

¶42

¶43

statement disclose that the dispute took around about 11.00 p.m. and they sent the deceased as well as the present petitioners from the spot by pacifying the dispute. Hence, their evidence is relevant only to the extent that there was a galata between the present petitioners and deceased.

¶44

The learned HCGP would contend that the petitioner No.1 is the owner of the car and the car was seized and it is found that the tires of the car were stained with blood and dust from the spot and the same was sent for FSL. But, that itself cannot be now termed to treat involvement of petitioner in offence under Section 302 of IPC. The petitioners are in custody since last more than six months. There are no eye witnesses and entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and prosecution is required to prove strong circumstances including the chain of circumstances without missing link, so as to prove the guilt of the present petitioners. Considering the fact, that investigation is concluded and vehicle has been seized and the blood stains were sent for FSL, I do not find any

¶45

¶46

impediment for admitting the petitioners on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, in my considered opinion, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass following:-

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petition is allowed .

¶49

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.91/2022 of Tavarekere Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 R/w Section 149 of IPC registered in S.C No.50/2022 on the file of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara on each of them executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O/SHO, subject to following conditions:-

¶50

i) The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶51

ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in any similar offences;

¶52

¶53

iii) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court;

¶54

iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Court, on all the dates of hearing, unless they were exempted by a specific order.

¶55

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

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Sri. Hemanth Kumar. T @ Tony v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Hemanth Kumar. T @ Tony 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

Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaramu R M Vs the State by C.E.N Crime Police Station

Shreesha Sasithota Prabhakaran Vs the State of Karnataka

Anil Kumar H S Vs State by Nandini Layout P S

Sri. Manjunath J Vs State of Karnataka

Raghu Vs State of Karnataka