Allowed

Mr Pramod M v. State by Alanahalli Police Station Mysore

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2022CRL.P/9871/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused facing charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The court found no credible evidence to substantiate prosecution allegations and granted bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is enlarged on bail by execution of a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, subject to standard conditions.

Mr Pramod M Vs State by Alanahalli Police Station Mysore — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9871/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. PRAMOD .M A/O LATE MAHALINGA AGED 28 YEARS R/O NO.260, T.N. PURA MAIN ROAD ALANAHALLI VILLAGE MYSORE-570 026

¶9

….PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR .H, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY ALANAHALLI POLICE STATION, MYSORE REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.20/2022 REGISTERED BY ALANAHALLY POLICE STATION, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking for enlarging him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.20/2022 of Alanahally Police Station, Mysuru District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, which is culminated in CC No.15/2022 and now pending before the Court of Special Judge, Mysuru.

¶20

The brief recitals of the complaint are that on 11.02.2022 at 5.00 p.m., the deceased Kiran went out of the house. Therefter, at about 7.30 p.m., the complainant’s brother’s son by name Pramod came near his house and complained that, complainant’s son-Kiran has assaulted the Pramod near his house and he is at Sai Residency Bar and asked the complainant to come and advise him. Therefore, the complainant went near the Sai Residency Bar along with Pramod and called his

¶21

¶22

son out side the said Bar. But, he did not come out and at that time one Mahesha was with his son Kiran. As his son-Kiran did not respond, the complainant returned to home. But, on the same day ie., on 11.02.2022 night at 8.00 p.m., Mr. Sagar telephoned to the wife of the complainant and informed that the present petitioner/Accused No.1-Pramod and others namely, Mahesh and Rakhi (Accused Nos.2 to 3 ) stabbed the Kiran and he is lying in front of Chips shop near Sai Residency Bar. Immediately, the complainant and his wife rushed to the spot and found that their son Kiran was lying in pool of blood. Immediately, they have shifted him to the JSS Hospital in an autorikshaw at 8.30 p.m. Thereafter, after half an hour, the Doctors declared that he is dead. Subsequently, on the next day at around 12.30 p.m. the complainant has lodged a complaint against the petitioners and other accused persons.

¶23

¶24

On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer has registered a case in Crime No.20/2022 and apprehended the present petitioner. It is also alleged that the blood-stained clothes and the knife used for commission of the offence were recovered at the instance of the present petitioner and then, the Investigating Officer after concluding the investigation, has submitted the charge sheet against the present petitioner.

¶25

The petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge with a bail petition seeking for bail and that bail petition came to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned HCGP appearing for the Respondent/State, and perused the records.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted

¶29

that, though the alleged incident is said to have been taken place on 11.02.2022 between 7.30 p.m. till 8.00 p.m., but the complaint was lodged on 12.02.2022 at 12.30 pm, after due deliberation. It is further alleged

¶30

that the parents themselves have taken the deceased to the hospital and admittedly, it is homicidal death. But, the entire case is rests on circumstantial evidence and though it is alleged that one Mr. Sagar, who is the cousin brother of the deceased has called the wife of the complainant through mobile and informed about the assault on the deceased, the call record sheet was not recovered by the Investigating Officer. He would also contend that it is alleged that in the confession statement, the petitioner has alleged to have purchased the knife, but the statement of the said vendor is also not recorded. He would further contend that the initially Accused Nos. 4 & 5 were implicated, whose confessional statement discloses that they were was involved in

¶31

¶32

alleged incident and interestingly, they were dropped by the Investigating Agency. He would contend that, admittedly the relationship between the parties are strained and hence after due deliberations, a false complaint is lodged. He would further assert that the investigation is concluded and charge sheet is has already been laid down and the petitioner is in custody since last eight months. He would further contend that, the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court and prayed for admitting the petitioner on bail.

¶33

Per contra, the learned HCGP would seriously object the bail petition contending that, CWs. 3 & 8 are eye-witnesses and they referred the name of the present petitioner. Hence, he would seek for rejecting the bail petition.

¶34

After hearing the arguments and after

¶35

perusing the records, it is an undisputed fact that the

¶36

¶37

death of the deceased Kiran is homicidal one. He was stabbed on 11.02.2022 between 7.30 and 8.00 p.m. It is also important to note here that the assault was made in front of Chips Shop near the Bar itself between 7.30 and 8.00 p.m. However, till the complainant and his wife rushed to the spot after receiving telephonic message, nobody has made an attempt to shift the injured to the hospital or to attend him. Absolutely there are no eye witnesses and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is hard to accept the contention of the Investigating Agency that they could not find any eye-witnesses. The CC-TV footages relied on by the prosecution would simply disclose the presence of the parties in the Bar. But, there is no material to show any scuffle between the deceased and accused is not forthcoming. Even though prosecution has relied the alleged CC-TV footages and contend that CWs. 3 & 8 are eye-witnesses, their statement discloses that they are not eye-witnesses. Further statement of

¶38

¶39

CWs.3 & 8 are completely contradictory to the statement of the complainant regarding the petitioner threatening the complainant that he will do whatever required to teach a lesson to the deceased, which is not the case made–out by the complainant himself. Though the recovery of knife is alleged and it is asserted that, it was purchased from the neighbouring shop, the Investigating Officer has not even bothered to record the statement of the concerned shop owner for having sold the knife. All these facts and circumstances clearly disclose that, at this juncture there is no evidence forthcoming to substantiate the contention of the prosecution. The investigation is concluded and the charge sheet is already laid down. The petitioner is in custody for the last eight months. Hence, the presence of the petitioner is no more required by the Investigating Agency and as such, no purpose would be served by keeping him in custody. Under these circumstances, I do not find any impediment for

¶40

¶41

admitting the petitioner on bail. The other

¶42

apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted-out by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed . The petitioner/accused No.1 is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.20/2022 of Alanahally Police Station, Mysuru District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC, pending on the file VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- ( Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing without fail, unless he is exempted by a specific order of the trial Court.

¶48

¶49

vi) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

KGR* CT:NR

Mr Pramod M v. State by Alanahalli Police Station Mysore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Pramod M v. State by Alanahalli Police Station Mysore

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

Shek Ahammed Vs State by Doddapete Police Station

Sri Raviraj Shetty R Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Shashank Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Arun Kumar K v Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Jabi Ulla @ Shameer @ Imran Vs the State of Karnataka