Dismissed

Kiran @ Gobi Kiran @ Kiran Kumar. Y. K. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2023CRL.P/402/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejected a criminal petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the petitioner's failure to explain the injury sustained on him, coupled with the prosecution's recovery of the weapon via the first accused's voluntary statement, provided sufficient nexus to reject the bail prayer.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer dismissed; the criminal petition is rejected.

Kiran @ Gobi Kiran @ Kiran Kumar. Y. K. Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 402 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 402 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KIRAN @ GOBI KIRAN @ KIRAN KUMAR Y K, S/O LATE YOGESH @ BOGESHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT 4TH CROSS, BEHIND GENERAL HOSPITAL, VIDYA NAGAR, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 201.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHELUR POLICE STATION, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)

¶17

2 - CRL.P No. 402 of 2023

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.722/2020 (CR.NO.86/2020) OF CHELUR P.S., TUMAKUR DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 201, 302, 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT, GUBBI.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri.Lakshmikanth.K, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vishwa Murthy S., learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the records.

¶22

Present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶23

“Wherefore, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.86/2020 and in Split-Up C.C.No.722/2020 of respondent Chelur Police, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 R/w 34 of IPC pending on the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC court Gubbi, Tumkur District and pass such other necessar4y order/s as this Hon’ble court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶24

¶25

CRL.P No. 402 of 2023

¶26

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶27

A complaint came to be lodged by Sri.Devaraju S/o of

¶28

late Shivalingappa, with the Chelur Police Station, Gubbi Circle, Tumkur District which was registered in Crime No.86/2020 on 05.08.2020.

¶29

Gist of the complaint averments reveal that

¶30

on 04.08.2020 at about 8.00 am when the complainant was in house he received a call from Anusha who is the sister-in-law of the complainant stating that on 03.08.2020 when her husband had been to fill the petrol to his bike bearing No.KA-06-ES8906 at Nitoor and did not returned the home. Being anxious about non-return of her husband, sister-in-law of the complainant called her relatives but all such attempts did not yield any positive results. As such, being anxious about nonreturn of the husband of the sister-in-law of the complainant, complainant went to the Police and lodged a missing complaint. The Police after registering the complaint, investigated the matter interalia arrested the petitioner and other accused persons and filed the detailed charge sheet.

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 402 of 2023

¶33

The gist of the charge sheet materials reveal that Sathesha who is the husband of the sister-in-law of the complainant had obtained loan and did not repay the same. On demand made by the accused persons, Sathesha pleaded that he has no money and he was wearing a gold chain. Accused Nos.1 and 2 hatched the plan to snatch the gold chain and wanted to apportionate towards the loan amount and therefore, on 03.08.2020 at about 6.15 pm when they spotted the deceased- Sathesha near the Nitoor circle they picked up quarrel and assaulted Sathesha.

¶34

The role assigned to the present petitioner is that he assaulted the deceased with a razor on the neck and the first accused took out a sharped weapon which is kept in his motorcycle and wanted to assault the Sathesha and Sathesha escaped the said blow and fell on the thigh on the 2^nd accused and both of them escaped on the motorcycle belonging to the first accused. This dead body of the Sathesha was traced by the investigating agency and post mortem report corroborates the version that there is a recovery of the weapon by the investigating agency at the instance of the accused based on the voluntary statement.

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 402 of 2023

¶37

The attempt made by the petitioner to obtain

¶38

an order of grant of bail, which was turned down by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru vide order dated 07.03.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.315/2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶39

Sri.Laxmikantha, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the ground urged in the bail petition, vehemently contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated by the Investigating Agency in the case on hand and sought for grant of bail. He also pointed out that the Police have concocted a story and alleged the recovery is a clear and ingenious concoxin by the Police and sought for grant of bail.

¶40

Per contra , learned High Court Government

¶41

Pleader opposes the bail ground stating that there is no explanation forthcoming from the present petitioner, as to the injury sustained by him.

¶42

He also contended that the recovery of the

¶43

weapon used in the incident is based on the voluntary statement of the accused and material collected by the

¶44

¶45

CRL.P No. 402 of 2023

¶46

Investigating Agency in the form of the charge sheet material would clearly form the nexus between the incident and the present petitioner as well and therefore, sought for rejection of the bail.

¶47

Perused the material on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties.

¶48

On such perusal of the material on record, it

¶49

is seen that the present petitioner was arrested on 12.08.2020 at his residence.

¶50

Based on the voluntary statement given by him, the Investigating Agency is able to recover the weapon which was used in the incident. The voluntary statement of the first accused and weapon seized from the first accused corroborates the prosecution case. The material on record clearly shows that initially the Police registered a missing complaint on 05.08.2020 and later on dead body of Sathesha was traced and identified by the wife of the deceased and the complainant. Later on further investigation, petitioner and another accused has been apprehended by the Police and after

¶51

¶52

CRL.P No. 402 of 2023

¶53

thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner.

¶54

It is settled principle of law that at this stage

¶55

of deciding the bail application, this Court is not expected to hold a mini trial to assess the merit or demerit of the case as the same mere prejudice the case in the party during the trial on hand or another.

¶56

Thus, desisting from holding a mini trial, perused the material on record is appreciated only for the purpose of considering the bail request of the petitioner, it is seen that the voluntary statement given by the accused and subsequent seizure of the weapon used in the incident would form sufficient nexus between the incident and the present accused person. Non-explanation of the injury caused to the petitioner and suppressing the injury is also a relevant factor while appreciating the case of the petitioner.

¶57

All these factors when viewed cumulatively, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the petition are hardly sufficient to accept the request made by the petitioner in obtaining an order of grant of bail by

¶58

¶59

CRL.P No. 402 of 2023

¶60

resorting to the special powers vested with this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C..

¶61

Accordingly, further apprehension expressed by the

¶62

prosecution is well founded. Accordingly, the following

¶63

O R D E R

¶64

The Criminal Petition is rejected .

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64 CT: BHK

Kiran @ Gobi Kiran @ Kiran Kumar. Y. K. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran @ Gobi Kiran @ Kiran Kumar. Y. K. 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

Pashawath Naseer @ Nusair Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrashekar G Vs State by

Rajashekhara @ Raju Vs State of Karnataka by

Govinda Nayaka Vs State by Vijayanagar Police

Ashiq a Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Pratheepa. N Vs State of Karnataka