Allowed

Smt Akkamahadevi Manjunath Pammar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2023CRL.P/736/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for two accused persons charged with murder and other offences under the IPC. The High Court allowed bail by imposing severe conditions, distinguishing their role in the incident from other co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.178/2022 by imposing a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 each with two sureties and strict conditions forbidding witness tampering or leaving the jurisdictio

Smt Akkamahadevi Manjunath Pammar Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 736 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 736 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT AKKAMAHADEVI MANJUNATH PAMMAR W/O MANJUNATH TUKARAM PAMMAR

¶9

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶10

R/AT HANAPURA S.P THANDA

¶11

GULEDAGUDDA TALUK-587203 BAGALAKOTE DISTRICT

¶12

SRI. KASHINATHA SHANKARAPPA MUNDINAMANI S/O LATE SHANKRAPPA RAMAPPA MUNDINAMANI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT HANAPURA S.P THANDA GULEDAGUDDATALUK-587203

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

BAGALAKOTE DISTRICT

¶16

(BY SRI. KRISHNA B J, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K P AGRAHARA POLICE BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU-560 023

¶20

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶21

¶22

CRL.P No. 736 of 2023

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI.V.S.VINAYAKA, HCGP)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.4 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.178/2022 REGISTERED BY THE K.P.AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard Sri.Krishna B.J., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. V.S. Vinayaka, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

¶29

This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶30

“WHEREFORE, the petitioners respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the petition by:

¶31

a. Pleased to grant regular bail to present petitioners/ accused No.6 & 7 in Crime No.178/2022 registered by the K.P. Agrahara Police, Bengaluru City, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under section 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 302 R/w Section 149 of IPC as per police arrest petition dated: 07-12-2022 said crime is pending

¶32

3 - CRL.P No. 736 of 2023

¶33

on the file of 30^th ACMM at Bengaluru in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

b. Pleased to pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Court feels deem fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶35

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶36

Sri. Raghukumar B.G., ASI of K.P. Agrahara police lodged a complaint with the police on 4.12.2022 which was registered in Crime No.178/2022 for an offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC., initially against unknown persons. The gist of the complaint averments reveal that on receipt of information by Hoysala Police who were on patrolling duty on 3.12.2022, the complainant went to the place of incident, near 5^th Cross, Magadi Road, where he noticed an unknown dead body and accordingly, reported the incident. After registering the case, the police after thorough investigation apprehended the petitioners and others. Based on the voluntary statement, police have implicated the present petitioners and there is

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 736 of 2023

¶39

no recovery from the present petitioners and a charge sheet came to be filed.

¶40

The attempt made by the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail is turned down by the learned District Judge. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶41

Sri. Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that even according to the voluntary statement, which is the sole basis for the investigating agency to apprehend the present petitioners and arraigning them as accused Nos.6 and 7 in the charge sheet, is that these two petitioners have pushed the deceased whereby he had fell down. Apart from pushing the deceased, the other allegations found against the petitioners are that they have assaulted the deceased with hand when he fell down.

¶42

Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the learned counsel sought for grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶43

5 - CRL.P No. 736 of 2023

¶44

Per contra, learned HCGP opposes the bail

¶45

petition by contending that in a matter of this nature especially when the police have invoked Section 149 of IPC, the individual overt-act loses its significance even for considering the bail request of the present petitioners and each one of the accused shared the common object of doing away with the life of Manjunatha Balappa Jamakhandi and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for bail.

¶46

In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously.

¶47

On such perusal of the material on record, initially the first information report came to be lodged with the K.P. Agrahara police against unknown persons. After registering the case, the police after thorough investigation, based on the voluntary statement, have arraigned the present petitioners as accused Nos.6 and 7. The voluntary statement reveals that these two petitioners

¶48

¶49

CRL.P No. 736 of 2023

¶50

have pushed the deceased and after he fell down assaulted him with hands. It is the other accused persons who have assaulted the deceased with cement blocks on his head repeatedly.

¶51

Though, there is sufficient force in the arguments put forth on behalf of the prosecution that when the prosecution has invoked Section 149 of IPC, the Court is not required to find out the individual overt-acts yet, for the purpose of appreciating the prima-facie materials so as to consider the request of the petitioners for grant of bail, when the material on record is critically analysed, the first petitioner being a lady and the second petitioner who is accused No.7 against whom individual overt-act alleged are only pushing the deceased and assaulting him with hands, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners can be enlarged on bail by resorting to the special powers vested with this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The apprehension of the prosecution including ground of parity insofar as other

¶52

¶53

CRL.P No. 736 of 2023

¶54

petitioners can be met with by imposing suitable stringent conditions.

¶55

Accordingly, the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The criminal petition is allowed. The petitioners are

¶58

directed to be enlarged on bail by the XXX ACMM at Bengaluru, in Crime No.178/2022 registered by the K.P. Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru, for offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 302 read with

¶59

Section 149 of IPC. on following conditions:

¶60

(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only)each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge;

¶61

(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

¶62

(iii) The petitioners shall attend the Court regularly;

¶63

¶64

CRL.P No. 736 of 2023

¶65

(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru District without prior permission.

¶66

Violation of any one of the above bail conditions

¶67

would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶68

It is made clear that grant of bail to these petitioners ipso facto would not act as a parity insofar as other accused persons are concerned.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

ALB

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Smt Akkamahadevi Manjunath Pammar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Akkamahadevi Manjunath Pammar 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

Puttappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Thulasiraman K Vs State by Inspector of Customs Ciu Airport and Aircargo Complex Bengaluru

Sri Suresh H K Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nizam @ Mohammed Nizam Vs State of Karnataka

Chandrahasha K T @ Chandra Vs State of Karnataka

S Pervez Vs the State of Karnataka