The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a bail petition filed by two accused persons charged with murder. The court found specific overt act allegations unsupported by trial and granted liberty to examine witnesses later.
Petition dismissed; Liberty to approach Court after examination of witnesses CW1 to CW3 and the doctor.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11759 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE AGRICULTURIST R/O GARAGA VILLAGE HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 527
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C, ADVOCATE)
AND :
STATE BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU 560 001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.62/2022 OF SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION, HIRIYUR SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 447, 323, 307, 504, 506, 149 SUBSEQUENTLY INSERTED 302 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioners in Crime No.62/2022 of Srirampura Police Station, Hiriyur Sub-Division, Chitradurga for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 323, 307, 504, 506, 149 and 302 of IPC.
Court and Trial Court granted the bail only in favour of accused Nos.3 to 8 and rejected the bail against these two petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in coming to the conclusion that there is specific overt act allegation against these petitioners that one among them poured the petrol and another one set the fire.
CRL.P No. 11759 of 2022
regard and alleged incident was taken place on 03.05.2022 and the counsel also submits that these petitioners are in custody and there are contradictions in the complaint and in further statement of the complainant and also in the mahazar also specific allegation is made that other accused persons have also poured the petrol and set the fire. But the complaint, the allegation is made only against these two petitioners and other accused were present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court to the statement made by the victim and the same is also certified by the doctor that he is able to give the statement and there are improvements in the case of the prosecution and falsely implicated all the accused persons. Hence, these petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
statement with regard to the overt act of these petitioners
and subsequently, the injured passed away hence, his statement has to be treated as dying declaration and in the complaint also the very specific allegations are made by the complainant who is the son of the injured and who was also very much present at the spot at the time of the incident and the Trial Court rejected the bail on the ground that there are specific overt act allegations against these petitioners hence, prayed to dismiss the bail petition.
6. Having heard the respective counsel appearing
for the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record it discloses that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that there was a civil dispute between the parties in respect of certain properties and also this Court while rejecting the earlier bail petition at crime stage taken note of grudge between the petitioners and the victim with regard to the civil dispute and motive to commit murder. The counsel for the petitioners not dispute the fact that there was a civil dispute between the
parties and the counsel also brought to notice of this Court to the complaint given by the petitioner along with other accused person before the Superintendent of Police wherein they have alleged against the local police and also about life threat to them. The main contention of the counsel that the victim himself has poured the petrol and set the fire and committed suicide hence, it is not a murder. CW1 who is the son of deceased was also very much present along with the injured at the time of the incident and CW2 and CW3 also rushed to the spot and witnessed the incident and pacified the incident and took the injured person to the hospital and statements are made before the police that they have witnessed the incident. Apart from that injured himself given the statement before the police in the presence of the doctor and the doctor also certifies that the injured is able to made statement and subsequently, he passed away and in his statement also he made specific overt act allegation against these two petitioners that accused No.1 poured the petrol and accused No.2 set the fire and the cause of
death is on account of burn injuries and the PM report also discloses the same cause for the death.
these petitioners that one is poured the petrol and another
one is set the fire, as a result, he has sustained injuries and the medical evidence also discloses that the cause of death is on account of burn injuries and apart from that the very petitioners have also lodged the private complaint before the Court in the year 2022 and when the material discloses that there was a civil dispute between the parties and the witnesses have also witnessed the incident and injured was taken to the hospital and history was given on account of pouring of petrol and setting of fire, the victim sustained injuries and also the complaint was given immediately by one of the son of the injured who was very much present at the time of the incident and in the complaint and the injured statement there is specific overt act allegation is made against these petitioners that one poured the petrol and another one set the fire and the
medical evidence is also supports the case of the prosecution and the contention that there are contradictions in the further statement and mahazar and the same is a matter of trial. Hence, I do not find any grounds to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners.
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
The petitioners are given liberty to approach this Court after examination of material witnesses i.e., CW1 to CW3 and also the doctor in whose presence the injured given the statement and also the IO who recorded the statement of the injured.
Sd/JUDGE
SN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to petitioners facing murder charges amidst allegations of suicide in course of civil dispute.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
LAKSHMANA S/O RAMANNA
GANGADHARA S/O RAMANNA
STATE
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
