Allowed

Rajesh. C v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2023CRL.P/574/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a criminal petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court held that eye-witnesses had not supported the prosecution and recovery was made at the instance of another accused already on bail, justifying discharge with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- and two sureties for like sum, along with conditions regarding witness tampering and jurisdiction.

Rajesh. C Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 574 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

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

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.574 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAJESH C, S/O LATE CHANNABASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT AVVALANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, SHRINAGARA, BANGALORE-560 050.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. RAKSHA KEERTHANA K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ARAKERE POLICE STATION, BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.23/2022 OF ARAKERE P.S., MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 504, 302 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) IN S.C.NO.5049/2022.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 574 of 2023

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in S.C.No.5049/2022 (Crime No.23/2022) of Arakere Police Station, Mandya, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

This Court vide order dated 29.06.2022, passed in Crl.P.No.5553/2022, had given liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court after examination of C.W.1 to C.W.5.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the eye-witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Two witnesses have been dropped out of the eye witnesses and other witnesses are only official witnesses and recovery witnesses and there is no recovery at the instance of this petitioner. The learned counsel submits that accused No.1, from whom recovery was made, is already enlarged on bail

¶26

¶27

CRL.P No. 574 of 2023

¶28

vide order dated 24.01.2023 in Crl.P.No.267/2023 and hence this petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.

¶29

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶30

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that

¶31

there are other eye-witnesses, who are recovery witnesses and their evidence has to be recorded and hence the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record, there is no dispute that earlier this Court had given liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court after examination of C.W.1 to C.W.5. C.W.1 to C.W.5 have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. The recovery is at the instance of accused No.1 and not at the instance of this petitioner. This Court has already exercised discretion in favour of accused No.1 from whom recovery was made and hence the contention of the learned counsel for the State that other recovery witnesses are to be examined cannot

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 574 of 2023

¶35

be accepted. Hence, it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail with conditions.

¶36

In view of the discussions made above, I pass

¶37

the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner

¶40

shall be released on bail in connection with S.C.No.5049/2022 (Crime No.23/2022) of Arakere Police Station, Mandya, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶41

(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶42

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶43

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶44

5 - CRL.P No. 574 of 2023

¶45

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Rajesh. C v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh. C 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

M. T. Sharadamma Vs Smt. Malligamma

Panchayat Development Officer Vs Sri K J Patel Gowda

Mr Narayana Vs Mr a S Nanjaraje Urs

Sri Mubarak @ Syed Sate Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Marakka Vs Sri M.v.Ramachandra Reddy

Puttamari Vs Executive Engineer (E) O and M