Dismissed

Ashoka v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2023CRL.P/1184/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a third successive bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 120B, 302, 201, and 34 IPC. The Court held that the petitioner's skin disease was not contagious and thus insufficient for bail, while family ties and prior merit rejections precluded enlargement.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected on merits with directions to deposit bail bonds not granted as conditions not satisfied.

Ashoka Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1184/2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ASHOKA S/O LATE BABA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT BBC COLONY HUNSUR TOWN MYSURU DSTRCT-571105

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI HASMATH PASHA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI KARIAPPA N A, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT-571105 REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.313/2021 OF HUNSUR RURAL POLICE STATION, HUNUSUR, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 302, 201 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 15.03.2023 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in favour of the petitioner in Crime No.313/2021 of Hunusuru Rural Police Station, Hunusuru, Mysuru for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleading appearing for the respondent-State.

¶20

This is a successive bail petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 for the third time. Firstly, he had approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.4072/2022 and this Court vide order dated 20.06.2022 has rejected the bail petition on merits after filing of the charge-sheet. Once again, this petitioner had filed one more bail petition in Crl.No.10974/2022 urging the additional grounds and this Court vide order dated

¶21

¶22

14.12.2022 dismissed the bail petition in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out further developments and no different consideration also found to exercise the discretion and also observed that this Court already considered the statements of CW1 and CW2 who have witnessed this petitioner along with the deceased and accused No.1 consuming alcohol in the previous day of the incident and this Court also taken note of the statement of CW6 who dug the pit at the instance of this petitioner and accused No.1 and also held that the body was discovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

¶23

Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶24

also urged the very same grounds contending that there is no material to connect this petitioner and the only motive attributed against accused No.1 is that he had illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased and accused No.1 only called the deceased to his land over phone and also allegation against accused No.1 is that he had assaulted with club. The counsel further contended that the body is not recovered at the instance of this

¶25

¶26

petitioner and the same was recovered at the instance of accused No.1 and this Court considered these grounds in the second successive bail petition.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that this petition is filed on two different grounds. One is that the petitioner is suffering from the skin disease which has reached chronic and acute stage which requires specialized treatment in some major hospital and now he is suffering irritation and itching of whole body, unable to tolerate and hence, he has to avail better medical treatment and the medical report from the prison doctor may be called for. It is further contended by the counsel that he is suffering from ill-health due

¶28

to skin disease and entire body has developed pimples and suffering continues itching, irritation and sever pain and requires specialized treatment in major hospital and hence, he may be enlarged on bail. The other contention is that he is having aged mother suffering from multiple diseases and he is also having wife and son to take care off and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶29

¶30

The counsel also brought to notice of this Court to the medical report produced along with the petition. Having taken note of the said document it discloses that the petitioner is taking treatment from 23.04.2022 and he is in continuous treatment. This Court having heard the respective counsel for the parties, directed the Government Advocate to get the medical report from the concerned hospital.

¶31

The counsel for the petitioner also produced a memo dated 15.02.2023 along with the additional medical report which discloses that the petitioner is taking the treatment from 29.12.2022 and he is in continuous treatment and also out patient record dated 10.02.2023 discloses that there was a reference as well as advice but in the bottom, it is mentioned that there is a possibility of infection which spread to other prison inmates but the said note appears to be inserted in the report.

¶32

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶33

Advocate filed a memo dated 23.02.2023 along with the medical report. In the said report is dated 21.02.2023 wherein it is

¶34

¶35

mentioned that treatment is advised to him and patient condition is not contagious, patient can be brought for further treatment after three weeks hence, the Government Advocate submits that doctor report dated 21.02.2023 is contrary to the report produced by the counsel for the petitioner. Thus, this Court again directed the Government Advocate to get one more report to verify with the said earlier report. Accordingly, the Government Advocate has filed a memo along with the medical report on 15.03.2023 wherein the Assistant Professor, Department of Skin and STD, K.R.Hospital, MMCRI, Mysuru addressed a letter to the Jail Superintendent wherein he stated that the detail history and on examination it reveals that patient has generalized scaling and itching over face, trunk and limb and the same diagnosed as CHRONIC ERYTRODERMA to AIRBORNE CONTACT DERMATITIS, scraping taking from the scale and examined under microscope and did not show any kind of fungal elements. In the letter, note also made that as there are no strong evidence on examination as well as laboratory findings to tell the patient is suffering from infectious condition, it can be declared that the present illness patient is suffering from not

¶36

¶37

contagious to others. The learned Government Advocate referring these reports contended that the note made in the report dated 21.02.2023 is doubtful since, in both the occasions when the patient was examined on 21.02.2023 and 10.03.2023,

¶38

the very reports are very clear that same is not contagious to others. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. The Government Advocate also submits that this Court already considered the bail petition on merits twice hence, no grounds are made out to enlarge the petitioner on bail even on medical grounds and hence, prayed to reject the bail petition.

¶39

Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that this Court, earlier rejected the bail petition vide order dated 20.06.2022 in Crl.P.No.4072/2022 wherein in paragraph 6 observed with regard to the material available on record particularly the statement of CW1 and CW2 who have last seen the deceased, this petitioner and accused No.1 consuming alcohol together. This Court also considered that the deceased was secured at the instance of this petitioner on the instructions

¶40

¶41

of accused No.1 and CW6 also speaks that he had dug the pit on the instruction of accused No.1 and also taken note of the recovery of the dead body at the instance of this petitioner and accused No.1 and the same is discovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. This Court also in the subsequent successive bail petition considered the same once again and comes to the conclusion that no further development has been made out and different consideration also not found to exercise the discretion in Crl.No.10974/2022 and in detail discussed that the body was recovered at the instance of this petitioner and accused No.1.

¶42

In this successive bail petition, two grounds are urged before this Court that he is suffering from skin disease, itching and irritation. No doubt, the petitioner is under treatment from April 2022 and report is also produced by the petitioner counsel which discloses that particularly, on 10.02.2023, the complaint of the petitioner is mentioned and also advised to take the medicine and directed to come after 15 days. But thereafter, there is a note of insertion stating there is a possibility of infections to spread other prison inmates. Hence,

¶43

¶44

this Court directed to get the report from the concerned hospital. Accordingly, the learned Government Advocate has produced the memo along with a report on 23.02.2023 wherein the Associate Professor, Department of Skin and STD, K.R.Hospital, Mysuru has given the report on 21.02.2023 stating that patient is examined and advised treatment and the patient condition is not contagious and patient can be brought for further treatment after three weeks. When the petitioner counsel mainly relies upon the earlier report dated 10.02.2023, once again this Court directed to get the report form the concerned doctor and accordingly the learned Government Advocate produced one more report received from the concerned hospital from the Assistant Professor, Department of Skin and STD, K.R.Hospital, MMCRI, Mysuru dated 10.03.2023 wherein it is clear that the history and examination reveals that he has generalized scaling and itching over face, trunk and limb but diagnosed as CHRONIC ERYTRODERMA but this report is clear that when scraping was taken from the scale and examined under microscope, it did not show any kind of fungal elements and note also made that there is no strong evidence on examination as well as laboratory

¶45

¶46

findings to tell the patient is suffering from infectious condition, it can be declared that the present illness patient is suffering from not contagious to others. Hence, this report is very clear that though he is suffering from chronic skin disease and the same is not contagious to others. Hence, the document which the petitioner relies upon is contrary to the two reports of the concerned Assistant Professor of the particular hospital on examination of the patient as well as the laboratory findings and microscopic examination was made and same did not show any kind of fungal elements and not contagious as the same will not expand to the other inmates of the jail. Thus, I do not find any merit in the petition to enlarge the petitioner on bail on medical grounds hence, the very contention of the counsel of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the further report of the Assistant Professor of the particular hospital wherein the petitioner was subjected for the treatment and also laboratory and microscopic examination.

¶47

The other ground urged by the counsel for the

¶48

petitioner is that he is having aged mother, wife and son is also

¶49

¶50

not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail when the offence is invoked under Section 302 of IPC which is punishable under death or life imprisonment and this is a third successive bail petition filed by the counsel for the petitioner and earlier bail petitions were also considered on merits after filing of the charge-sheet and also in the earlier successive petition as well as in the present bail petition the petitioner has not made out a

¶51

case to enlarge him on bail on medical grounds.

¶52

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶53

following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

The criminal petition is rejected.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Ashoka v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashoka 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

Shaik Farook @ Farooq Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Ravisha H L @ Ravi Vs State of Karnataka

Pujar Thippanna Vs Smt.Thippamma

Thippeningaiah Vs Shivamma M

Mr. Sreenivasmurthy Vs Ms. Lakshmamma

Smt. B E Sumathi Dead by Lrs Vs J S S Mahavidyapeeta