Allowed

Manjunatha. N @ Manja. N v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2023CRL.P/3644/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a successive bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C., observing hostility of prosecution witnesses and lack of evidence for continued judicial custody. Bail was granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties subject to stringent conditions.

Manjunatha. N @ Manja. N Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:38436 CRL.P No. 3644 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3644 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANJUNATHA. N @ MANJA. N S/O. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF CHINYA VILLAGE, HONAKERE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, PIN-571 434.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI ANILKUMAR A.S., AND SRI PARAMESWARAPPA .C, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NAGAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION, NAGAMANGALA-571 432, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI B. LAKSHMANA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.129/2021 OF NAGAMANGALA POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302,201,120B R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA S.C.NO.142/2021.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:38436 CRL.P No. 3644 of 2023

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FORORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri Anilkumar H.S., appearing on behalf of Sri Parameswarappa C., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Lakshmana, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

¶21

Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., with the following prayer:

¶22

“Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.129/2021 of Nagamangala Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 120(B), r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 pending on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mandya in S.C.No.142/2021, in the ends of justice.”

¶23

It is a successive bail application of the petitioner. Petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B r/w Section 34 IPC.

¶24

It is submitted at the Bar that none of the material witnesses of the prosecution have supported the case of the

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38436 CRL.P No. 3644 of 2023

¶26

prosecution and despite treating them as hostile witnesses and cross-examined by the prosecution, no useful material is elicited in such cross-examination so as to improve the case of the prosecution to any extent, much less beyond reasonable doubt. Under such circumstances, continuation of the accused in Judicial Custody is no longer warranted. The other apprehension of the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions.

¶27

Taking note of the fact that the accused/petitioner is in Judicial custody on and from 05.06.2021, this Court is of the considered opinion that the bail application is to be allowed.

¶28

Accordingly, following order is passed:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(1) The criminal petition is allowed. (2) The Petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.129/2021 of Nagamangala Rural Police Station, on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- [Rupees Two lakhs only] with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Judge.

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38436 CRL.P No. 3644 of 2023

¶32

(3) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the remaining prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation process in any manner.

¶33

(4) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Mandya District without prior permission.

¶34

(5) Petitioner shall attend the court regularly.

¶35

(6) The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶36

Violation of any of the above conditions, would entitle the

¶37

prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Manjunatha. N @ Manja. N v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunatha. N @ Manja. N v. State of Karnataka by

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

Smt Nagamma Vs Smt Lakshmidevi

Rathan Babulal Lath Vs Golden Enclave Apartment Owners Association

The Commissioner Vs Sri Fiyaz Khan

Sri Mohammed Ibrahim Vs Sri S a Mujeep

Sri. Mannar Reddy Vs Sri. Ketaram Patel

Smt Maqbool Jan @ Jainab Vs Smt Khamrunnisa