Allowed

Vignesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2022CRL.P/989/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Petition No.989/2022, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the bail application of Vignesh, accused No.2 in a murder case (Sections 302, 201 IPC). The Court held that since co-accused Nos.1 and 4 were granted bail on the ground of belated eyewitness statement and lack of recoveries, there was a change in circumstance justifying parity for the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail on obtaining a bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.989/2022

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

VIGNESH S/O NEELEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO.8, BANDEMATH ROAD BALETHOTA,KENGERE SATELLITE TOWN BENGALURU – 560026. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI LETHIF B,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION MANDYA DISTRICT REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI ROHIT B J, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.37/2021 OF MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION, MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 323, 324, 302, 201 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA IN S.C.NO.83/2021.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.37/2021 of Mandya West Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Rekha.T.

¶18

Heard Sri. Lethif B, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rohit B J, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 25.02.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. The earlier petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.P. No.989/2022 came to be dismissed

¶20

by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2021. Subsequent to dismissal of the petition, accused No.1 who was named in the

¶21

¶22

FIR and accused No.4 who stand on par with the petitioner were enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.PL.4596/2021 and 4586/2021. Since accused Nos.1 and 4 being the co-accused are already enlarged on bail, the present petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the principle of parity. Accordingly, he seeks for allowing the petition.

¶23

Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the petition submits that the claim of the petitioner was rejected earlier on merits. There is no changed circumstance to re-consider the prayer made by the petitioner except on the ground that accused Nos.1 and 4 are already enlarged on bail. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of the petition.

¶24

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶25

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶26

¶27

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Affirmative’ for

¶28

the following:

¶29

REASONS

¶30

Even though it is contended by the petitioner that he is falsely implicated in the matter and that the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, the same was not accepted by this Court in view of the contention of the prosecution that CW2 is the eyewitness and his statement is recorded. However, learned counsel for the petitioner produced copy of the order dated 14.01.2022 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.Nos.4596/2021 and 4586/2021. Accused No1 who was initially named in the FIR, so also accused No.4, are enlarged on bail on the ground that the statement of CW2 was recorded belatedly and there were no recoveries at their instance. Learned HCGP fairly submits that the overt act alleged against accused No.1 and the present petitioner are one and the same. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to reject the claim made by the petitioner. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail and accordingly, pass the following:

¶31

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶34

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in

¶35

Crime No.37/2021 of Mandya West Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶36

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶37

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶39

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶40

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify

¶41

¶42

the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

brn

Vignesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vignesh 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

Chandrakanth Vs the State of Karnataka

Naganath Niranjanappa Shettigar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahesh S/O Dyavappa Doddamani Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Abhishek M.B.@Abhishek M.D. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Irfan @ Chapper Irfan Vs State of Karnataka