Dismissed

Sheeraram @ Suresha v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2023CRL.P/8390/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought regular bail for murder conspiracy, rape, and possession of firearms. Rejecting the plea after considering prosecution evidence of motive, conspiracy, and recovery of stolen jewellery, the court dismissed the application holding the offence heinous.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail sought by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Sheeraram @ Suresha Vs State of Karnataka by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:38637 CRL.P No. 8390 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8390 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHEERARAM @ SURESHA S/O NARAYANLAL AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/A C/O SHARADA, OPP TO GANESH TEMPLE, DODDAPETE EXTENSION, KUNIGAL TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT. PERMANENTLY R/A. NEAR ADARSHA SCHOOL PATEL COLONY, BILLAD TOWN JAIPUR CITY (SOUTH) RAJASTHAN - 302 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI AKASH R RAO, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION MANDYA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI RANGASWAMY R, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.10/2020 OF MANDYA WEST P.S., MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 394, 397, 302, 304 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3, 7 AND 25(1A) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:38637 CRL.P No. 8390 of 2023

¶20

PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA IN S.C.NO.52/2020.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Accused in S.C.No.52/2020 pending before the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya arising out of Crime No.10/2020, registered by Mandya West Police Station, Mandya District for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 158, 114, 449, 302, 201 R/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 7, 25(1A) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 is before this Court seeking regular bail.

¶24

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased

¶26

Bundaram, who is the husband of accused no.4 came to know about illicit relationship between accused no.1 and his wife/accused no.4. Since Bundaram was objected for said relationship, accused no.1 conspired with other accused persons to eliminate Bundaram, who is the husband of accused no.4. In furtherance of such conspiracy, accused no.4 had

¶27

agreed to give a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to accused no.1. On 20.01.2020, accused no.1 came along with accused nos.2 and

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38637 CRL.P No. 8390 of 2023

¶29

3 to the house of Bundaram and after entering the house, he stabbed Bundaram, who was sleeping in the house. Accused no.3 caught hold of deceased and accused no.2 also assaulted

¶30

the deceased with a knife. Thereafter, the said accused persons took away the jewels of accused no.4 as planned and left the spot. The petitioner was arrested in the said case on 22.01.2020.

¶31

The bail application of the petitioner in S.C.No.52/2020 pending before the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya was rejected on 21.12.2020. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 3 years. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶33

Per contra, the learned HCGP has opposed the bail application.

¶34

The charge sheet material would go to show that in furtherance of conspiracy with other accused, accused nos.1 to 3 had come to the house of accused no.4 on 20.01.2020 and

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38637 CRL.P No. 8390 of 2023

¶36

they had entered the house at about 11.30 p.m, and had stabbed the deceased Bundaram on his vital parts of the body. Accused no.1 had strong motive to murder Bundaram since he had illicit relationship with Bundaram's wife who is accused no.4 in the present case. After committing the murder of Bundaram, accused nos.1 to 3 had left the house along with gold jewelleries of accused no.4 as planned. Subsequent to arrest of accused persons, jewelleries which were taken by them from the house of the deceased has been recovered. The finger print of accused no.1 was also found in the crime spot. Therefore, there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner to the crime. The petitioner has committed a heinous offence by murdering a innocent person. The petitioner hails from Rajasthan. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for by him in the petition.

¶37

9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

NMS

Sheeraram @ Suresha v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheeraram @ Suresha 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

State by Cubbon Park Police Station, Vs Ms. Charusmitha P N

Sri. Velu .C Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nandan N Vs State by Yelahanka Ps

Samiulla Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Mahammad Suhel Vs the State by

Mohammed Saad Vs State of Karnataka