Dismissed

Bharath G R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2023CRL.P/4449/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition seeking regular bail for the petitioner charged with offences under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. The Court held that due to the heinous nature of the offence, prima facie material available, and risk of tampering with witnesses, bail was not just or proper.

What did the court decide?

Petition for grant of regular bail dismissed. Accused remains in judicial custody.

Bharath G R Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:25608 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4449 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BHARATH G.R., S/O RAJACHARI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT OPP. TO ANJANEYA TEMPLE, WARD NO.35, BOMMANAYAKANAHALLI, HASSAN-34.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HARSHITHA B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY EXTENSION POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01.

¶15

(BY SRI.K. NAGESHWARAPPA HCGP.,)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C 1973, BY THE STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR. NO. 167/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 345-B, 307, 302 OF IPC. HASSAN EXTENSION POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN.

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:25608 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2023

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS’, THIS DAY, THIS COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail in Cr.No.167/2022 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354-(D), 307, 302 of IPC of Hassan Extension Police Station, Hassan District against this accused.

¶22

The accused is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest i.e., on 12.08.2022. The petitioner had filed bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C before Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in Crl.Misc.No.1370/2022, same was dismissed on 09.01.2023. The petitioner filed Criminal petition

¶23

No.3706/2022 and the same was withdrawn by the petitioner. Hence, petition was dismissed as not pressed as per order dated 02.05.2023. Now the petitioner has filed fresh bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

NC: 2023:KHC:25608 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2023

¶25

¶26

On the basis of complaint filed by one Sachin

¶27

H.S, the elder brother of the deceased, Hassan Extension police have registered a case in Cr.No.167/2022 against this accused/petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 354(D) and 307 of IPC and submitted FIR to the court on 04.08.2022 at 10.45 P.M. After investigation, investigating officer has submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 354(D), 307 and 302 of IPC.

¶28

Charge sheet was filed on 10.11.2022. After taking the cognizance, case was registered in CC No.4961/2022 on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan. It is alleged in the charge sheet that CW.1’s sister by name Sharanya working at Bharathi Associates, situated at Boovanahalli cross. The accused forced her to love him and harassing her physically and mentally. When she refused to love him, the accused with an intention to murder her, on 03.08.2022 when she was proceeding on the road to go to work, the accused came in

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25608 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2023

¶30

a car rash and negligently and dashed against her from her back side. As a result she sustained injuries. The CW2 and CW3 shifted her to Hospital, where she died on 04.08.2022. When the accused after dashing the car to deceased Sharanya, he tried to escape and dashed the car to the KSRTC bus and also dashed to two bikes which were

¶31

parked on the road side and damaged the said vehicles. Thereafter when he stopped the car and tried to escape, CW40 and CW1 caught hold him and produced before CW44. On enquiry he stated that he and CW1’s sister by name Sharanya loved each other and after some time said fact came to the knowledge of her parents, she refused to love him. Hence, the accused made plan to kill her and on 03.08.2022 in the morning at 9.30, she was proceeding on the left side of the road, the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-03-AH-5776 Suzuki Alto came and dashed against her thereby she sustained grievous injuries and later on the same day at about 2.00 PM, she died in the hospital while under treatment.

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25608 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2023

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶34

submitted his argument that the petitioner is innocent, peace loving citizen and has not committed any offence leveled against him. The police have already investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. Further custody of petition is not warranted. The case of the prosecution is rest of circumstantial evidence which requires to be proved beyond reasonable doubt during trial. Further it is submitted that the alleged commission of the offences 302 is not applicable to this case. The alleged incident was on the account of accident. Therefore, whether the incident was an accidental death or homicidal death, which requires to be proved during the trial.

¶35

The petitioner has filed petition in

¶36

Crl.P.No.3706/2023 which came to be withdrawn since all

¶37

the prosecution papers were not given. Though the prosecution has projected that the petitioner was loving the deceased could not be taken as gospel truth since if the intention of petitioner was to commit murder of the

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25608 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2023

¶39

deceased, he would see the deceased died on the spot but in this case, deceased sustained injuries on account of the road traffic accident and she was treated for some days. Thereafter, at this stage, it cannot be concluded that it is a case of murder and it could be a case of 304A IPC. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by this court. On all these grounds, sought for allow this petition.

¶40

Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP has submitted his argument that IO has submitted charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 354 (D), 307 and 302 IPC. CW1 is the complainant. CWs.2 and 3 are eye witness. This case is not based on circumstantial evidence that there is direct evidence against accused to attract alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. IO has also recorded voluntary statement of accused and on the basis of that voluntary statement, IO has seized mobile, Bank pass book and also SIM card which were used for booking car which involved in the

¶41

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:25608 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2023

¶42

commission of offence. At this stage, there are prima-facie material to attract the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, which is heinous in nature and punishable with imprisonment for life or death. Though accused is not required for further investigation, he is not entitled for bail. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper the prosecution witness and also chances of absconding and it will also effect to the society at large. On all these grounds, sought for dismissal of this petition.

¶43

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

¶44

following points arise for consideration are:

¶45

1) Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to allow the bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?

¶46

1. What order?

¶47

My answers to the above points are as under: Point No.1: Negative Point No.2: As per final order.

¶48

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:25608 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2023

¶49

RE.POINT NO.1:

¶50

On the basis of complaint dated 03.08.2022 filed by the Sri.Sachin H.S, elder brother of the deceased Sharanya, at Hassan Extension, the police have registered a case in Cr.No.167/2022 against the accused for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 354(D) and 307 of IPC and submitted FIR to the court on 04.08.2022 at 10.45 pm. During the course of investigation, IO has recorded the statement of eye witness CW2 Vaibhav Suresh Gowda S/o Suresh Gowda, CW3-Upendra S/o Nilson Lipori Kuni, CW11 Satish S/o Krishnaiah, CW12 Madhu S/o Beluregowda, CW14 Naveen G.R S/o Rangaswamy. That on 12.08.2022, IO has arrested the accused and recorded voluntary statement. On the basis of this voluntary statements, IO has recovered material object under mahazar.

¶51

IO has also conducted inquest panchanama, in which also IO has recorded statement of witness. The postmortem report reveals that death of the deceased is

¶52

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:25608 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2023

¶53

due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of head injury sustained. A perusal of the entire prosecution papers at this stage, that there are prima-facie material to attract the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 354(D), 307 and 302 of IPC. The alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 302 of IPC are heinous in nature. At this stage, if the petitioner is released on bail, definitely a wrong message will be passed on to the public at large, especially to the younger generation, which will pollutes the minds of the public, which is not proposed to be acted by this court of law in the ends of justice and equity.

¶54

At this stage, if accused/petitioner is released on bail, it will affect to the society at large. Considering the nature and gravity of offence, chance of tempering the prosecution witnesses and also absconding, I am of the opinion that it is not just and proper to release the accused on bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶55

10 -

¶56

NC: 2023:KHC:25608 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2023

¶57

ORDER

¶58

The petition is dismissed.

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

Bharath G R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharath G R 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

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri P Nagaraj

Hanumanthegowda Vs the Manager

Sri v S Subramaniam @ Subramani Vs M/S Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Bhagya Vs the Manager

Mallappa S/O Hanumanthappa Tinkapur, Vs the Authorised Officer and

Sri. Manu M @ Taki @ Mau Vs State through