Allowed

Shri Sarvesh S/O Sandeep Sapkal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2024CRL.P/103582/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for regular bail filed by accused Nos.7 to 9 in a murder conspiracy case. Despite hostile prosecution witnesses, the court held that granting bail with specific conditions would not prejudice the prosecution. The trial court is directed to release the petitioners on bail under an ₹2 lakh personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners-accused Nos.7 to 9 ordered to be released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- each with sureties and attendance conditions.

Shri Sarvesh S/O Sandeep Sapkal Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:17857 CRL.P No. 103582 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103582 OF 2024

¶9

(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)-)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SHRI SARVESH S/O SANDEEP SAPKAL AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BARBER, R/O. SHASTRINAGAR, 2ND CROSS, BELAGAVI,

¶12

TALUK: DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 590 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SHRI. AKASH S/O KAILAS HEGADE AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O. CANTONMENT QUARTERS, CAMP BELAGAVI, TALUK: DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 590 001.

¶15

SHRI. UTKARSH @ BABU S/O. SUNIL VERMA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: WORKING IN HOTEL, R/O. SAMADEVIGALLI, PANTABALEKUNDRI COMPLEX, KHADEBAZAR,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC-D:17857 CRL.P No. 103582 of 2024

¶18

BELAGAVI, TALUK: DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 590 001.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. S.M.MUCHHANDI, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BELAGAVI RURAL P.S. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. (U/SEC. 483 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING THAT THE PETITION FILED BY THIS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED N.7, 8 AND 9 MAY BE ALLOWED AND THESE PETITIONERS MAY BE ENLARGED ON REGULAR BAIL BY IMPOSING REASONABLE CONDITIONS IN BELAGAVI RURAL P.S. CRIME NO. 38/2022 U/SEC. 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 302, 109, 201, 213 R/W 149 OF IPC, PENDING TRIAL IN S.C.NO. 138/2022 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELAGAVI.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC-D:17857 CRL.P No. 103582 of 2024

¶29

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN)

¶32

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners /accused Nos.7 to 9 under section 439 of Cr.P.C.(Old) and under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (In short 'BNSS') (New) Act, for granting bail in Crime.No.38/2022, registered by the Belagavi Rural P.S. and charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 302, 109, 201, 213 R/w 149 of IPC., now pending on the file of IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in SC.No.138/2022.

¶33

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP takes the notice.

¶34

The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint of P.W.19 who is the wife of the deceased filed complaint to the police on 15.03.2022 alleging that her husband was murdered by some unknown persons. During the investigation the police have arrested the petitioners on 23.03.2022, 06.05.2022 and 11.05.2022, they have been remanded to the judicial custody.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17857 CRL.P No. 103582 of 2024

¶36

Their bail petition came to be rejected, hence they approached this court, which also came to be rejected in the earlier occasion with a direction to appear before this court after examination of witnesses and also direction issued to the Trial Court to conduct the trial on day to day basis as per chapter 18 of the Cr.P.C.

¶37

Now the petitioners once again before this court on the ground, the material witnesses i.e, eye witnesses P.W.1 and 2 have already examined, they have not supported. The P.W.19 who is the wife of the deceased i.e., complainant also examined, she also turned hostile. Most of the witnesses were examined, except few official witnesses. The case is adjourned, the last date of hearing was 28.11.2024, now the case is posted for 10.12.2024. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

¶38

Per contra learned HCGP objected the bail petition.

¶39

Having heard the arguments and perused the records which reveals, the accused Nos.1 to 3 said to be conspired to commit murder of the husband of the complainant. They introduced the accused Nos.4 and 5 for committing the murder, in turn they contacted the accused No.11 who said to be contract killer. In turn the accused No.11 said to be engaged

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17857 CRL.P No. 103582 of 2024

¶41

the accused Nos.7 to 9 for committing the murder by paying Rs.10,00,000/- to them and Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid as advance amount and remaining amount will be paid after execution of the murder. Accordingly, on the date of incident these three petitioners said to be committed murder. The police have arrested the accused, the confession statement was also recorded, the charge sheet was also filed. Now the P.W.1 and 2 said to be eye witnesses but turned hostile, C.W.1 who is examined as P.W.19, who is the wife of the deceased, also turned hostile. As per the order sheet produced by the learned counsel reveals that the Trial Court vide order dated 28.10.2024 fixed the trial by posting the matter on 20.11.2024, 21.11.2024, 22.11.2024, 23.11.2024 and 27.11.2024 by fixing the date continuously for issuing summons to CW.2, 3, 16 and 17, 29 to 31, 32, 33, 36, 38 and 39 by 28.11.2024, except two witnesses the investigation officer other witnesses are summoned. The witnesses examined except two or three witnesses. Considering the fact of the case where the main material witnesses was turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. The liberty also granted by this court for approaching this court if the trial was not concluded within

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17857 CRL.P No. 103582 of 2024

¶43

time, admittedly the Trial Court not concluded the trial, accused Nos.1 to 5 were already on bail, except examining the official witnesses the other witnesses already examined and most of them were not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, by imposing certain conditions if the bail is granted to the petitioners no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution.

¶44

Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed.

¶45

The petitioners-accused Nos.7 to 9 are ordered to be released on bail by the Trial Court in Special Case No.138/2022 (Crime No.38/2022) registered by Belagavi Rural P.S. for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 302, 109, 201, 213 R/w 149 of IPC., now pending on the file of IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi subject to the following conditions:

¶46

(i) Petitioners shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Two Lakh only) with two surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; out of which one surety must be local surety.

¶47

(ii) Petitioners shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC-D:17857 CRL.P No. 103582 of 2024

¶50

(iii) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without prior permission.

¶51

(iv) Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the police once in 15 days i.e., every 2^nd and 16^th of the calendar month until disposal of the criminal case in Trial Court.

¶52

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶53

SRK List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1 CT:SK

Shri Sarvesh S/O Sandeep Sapkal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sarvesh S/O Sandeep Sapkal 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

Kum Banupriya P Vs Sri Sreeramappa

D. Jayanna Vs Smt. Jothi Chandani

Smt. Ratnamma Vs State of Karnataka

P C Bhagyalakshmi Vs P Ranganath

Sri N Srinivasa Vs Smt Manjula

Smt. B N Asha Vs Dr G P Basavaraj