Allowed

Prajwal @ Halla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2024CRL.P/12325/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.3 in a kidnapping-murder case sought regular bail after his earlier petition was dismissed. Prosecution witnesses turned hostile and accused No.4 with similar allegations was already on bail. The court granted bail, citing parity and absence of criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on Rs.2,00,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions.

Prajwal @ Halla Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49083 CRL.P No. 12325 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12325 OF 2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

PRAJWAL @ HALLA, S/O RAJU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT T.K. LAYOUT, KARADIGUDDE, KANAKAPURA TOWN, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, (NOW IN J.C)

¶7

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka

¶8

(BY SRI. A.N. RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KANAKAPURA RURAL POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CR.NO.170/2023 OF KANAKAPURA RURAL POLICE, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 363, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING IN SC.NO.5018/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, SIT AT KANAKAPURA.

¶15

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:49083 CRL.P No. 12325 of 2024

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking

¶21

grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.170/2023 of Kanakapura Police Station, pending in S.C.No.5018/2024, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, sitting at Kanakapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Manjunatha.

¶22

Heard Sri A.N. Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Yashodha K.P, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶23

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶24

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

¶25

for grant of bail under Section 439 of

¶26

Cr.P.C.?”

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49083 CRL.P No. 12325 of 2024

¶28

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶29

R E A S O N S

¶30

The petitioner being accused No.3 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 31.10.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Initially, the petitioner had sought for bail by filing Crl.P.No.3376/2024. The same came to be dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2024.

¶31

Now again the petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of bail on the ground that CWs-1 to 4, who are examined before the Trial Court have not supported the case of the prosecution and that accused No.4 against whom similar allegations are made is already enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.6109/2024 vide order dated 16.07.2024.

¶32

On perusal of column No.17 of the charge sheet, it discloses that accused Nos. 1 to 4 have kidnapped the deceased. It is stated that there is CCTV camera footage collected by the Investigating Officer to support the contention

¶33

that it was accused Nos. 1 to 4 who have kidnapped the deceased. Later, the deceased was found dead with the

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49083 CRL.P No. 12325 of 2024

¶35

injuries. Specific overt act is alleged against each of the accused is depending on the voluntary statements said to have been given by the accused, since there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. But as per PM report, deceased had sustained as many as 10 external injuries and death was due to head injury

¶36

sustained. Since there are no eye-witnesses who have witnessed the petitioner assaulting the deceased. It is based on circumstantial evidence. It is stated that PWs.1 to 4 examined

¶37

by the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution. Accused No.4 is already enlarged on bail. Hence

¶38

the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of parity with that of accused No.4. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents. Hence, I am of

¶39

the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail, subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶40

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶41

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The petition is allowed.

¶44

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49083 CRL.P No. 12325 of 2024

¶45

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 170/2023 of Kanakapura Police Station, pending in S.C.No.5018/2024, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, sitting at Kanakapura, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶46

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶47

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶48

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶49

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶50

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a

¶51

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:49083 CRL.P No. 12325 of 2024

¶52

report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for

¶53

the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶54

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶55

SPV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4

Prajwal @ Halla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prajwal @ Halla 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

Ramanujam K Vs Srinivas Bhagil Dhaya

Sri.C.Boregowda Vs Sri.M.Prakash

Sri. Badarinath N v Vs M/S Siddarth Enterprises

Sri Kiran Kumar D H Vs Sri Ashwin K

Sri Mohammed Shabbir Baig Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Pradeep @ Mallesha Vs the State of Karnataka