Allowed

Keerthi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2022CRL.P/9674/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition seeking bail for an accused charged with murder (IPC 302) arising from an assault. Despite the charge of murder and the death of the victim, the court found no impediment to bail and enlarged the petitioner to personal sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail via personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum.

Keerthi Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9674 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KEERTHI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O SRINIVASA R/AT HARINAHALLI VILLAGE, BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. P.NATARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BETTADAPURA POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.130/2022 OF BETTADAPURA P.S., MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341,504,323,324,506,302 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL

¶15

¶16

CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, PERIYAPATNA MYSURU DISTRICT AND ETC.,

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section

¶20

439 of Cr.P.C for enlarging him on bail in Crime No.130/2022 of Bettadapura Police Station, initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections, 341, 504, 323, 324 and 506 of IPC which was subsequently culminated in submission of the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for State. Perused the records.

¶22

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the complainant, deceased and petitioner are relatives and they are residing in Harinahalli Village of Bettadapura Hobli in Periyapatna taluk and the wife of the petitioner has deserted him about one year prior to the incident and as such the petitioner used to take his meals in the house of the complainant. Subsequently, since last four months

¶23

¶24

prior to the incident, the complainant and deceased stopped providing food to the petitioner and as such he used to quarrel with them. It is also alleged that on 25.06.2022 evening at 4.00 p.m., the deceased went to Sangarashettahalli village and while he was returning near Sangarashettahalli Government School the petitioner wrongly restrained him, abused him in filthy language and quarreled with him and assaulted him by stone, by picking the same from the spot on his head. When the deceased fell down he also kicked him on his chest and abdomen and then Shashi, Raghu and others came there and pacified the matter.

¶25

When the complainant got the information about these aspects, she rushed to the spot and then shifted the deceased to Periyapatna Government Hospital and from there he was shifted to Mysore K.R. Hospital. It is also alleged that initially the petitioner has undertaken to bear the medical expenses of the treatment of the deceased and as he failed to pay the medical expenses on

¶26

¶27

01.07.2022 the complainant has lodged the complaint by setting the law in motion.

¶28

On the basis of the complaint the crime was

¶29

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 323, 324, 506 of IPC. However, subsequently, during the course of the treatment the deceased succumbed in the hospital because of the injuries sustained by him and as such offence under Section 302 came to be

¶30

incorporated.

¶31

The petitioner was arrested on 07.07.2022 and was produced before the concerned Judiciational Magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, the spot mahazar was conducted and the blood stained cloths of the deceased as well as complainant and the stone used for assault were recovered. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶32

¶33

The petitioner has approached the learned

¶34

Sessions Judge seeking bail and his bail petition came to be rejected. Hence petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the petitioner is relative of the deceased as well as the complainant. According to the prosecution the alleged assault has taken place on 25.06.2022 evening around 6.00 or 6.30 p.m., but the complaint was lodged on 01.07.2022. Admittedly, the injured was initially shifted to Periyapatna Government Hospital and from there he was shifted to K.R. Hospital, Mysore and he succumbed in the early morning on 05.07.2022. The complaint was lodged on 01.07.2022 regarding assault on the ground that the petitioner has not borne the medical expenses as assured which has prompted them to lodge a complaint. But subsequently in view of the death of injured the offence under Section 302 is incorporated.

¶36

¶37

The main contention of the learned HCGP is that there are three eye witnesses to the incident. No doubt there are three eye witnesses and the allegations does disclose that the petitioner did assaulted the deceased by stone which was lying at the spot. He has not gone there with preparation and at this juncture it is to be ascertained whether the offence falls under Section 302 of IPC or 304 of IPC is attracted.

¶38

On considering the conduct of the complainant and the allegations made in the complaint, it is evident that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause the death. However all these aspects are required to be tested during trial and the recovery is concluded and petitioner is in custody for last four months. After completion of investigation the charge sheet has been laid down. The presence of petitioner is no more required by the Investigating Agency. There are no allegation regarding tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶39

Under these circumstances, looking to the facts and circumstances, I do not find any impediment for

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The petition is allowed .

¶44

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.130/2022 of Bettadapura Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 323, 324, 506 and 302 of IPC on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, subject to following conditions:-

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

¶49

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

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Keerthi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keerthi 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

Sri. Sunka Bhovi Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Varun Gurjar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Harish R Vs State of Karnataka

Imran @ Mady Imran Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Krithika Saraswathi Vs Sri. K. Lakshminarayana

Khaja Nawaz @ Nawaz Pasha Vs State by