Dismissed

Puran Ram Devasi @ Puranram v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2024CRL.P/13630/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.3 in a murder-for-gain and dacoity case filed a successive bail petition after earlier rejections. The court noted he did not directly participate but received stolen gold and the accused resided in other States, making securing presence difficult. Bail was refused; trial court directed to complete trial within nine months.

What did the court decide?

Bail denied; trial Court directed to dispose of S.C.No.1954/2022 within nine months from receipt of the order.

Puran Ram Devasi @ Puranram Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:2710 CRL.P No. 13630 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13630 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PURAN RAM DEVASI @ PURANRAM S/O. KANARAM, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO. 7, II FLOOR, JEFS HOUSE, GOYES ROAD, VARGONA AMONA, KEWPE, GOA, PERMANENTLY R/AT KEVAL RAYPURA TAHASIL PALI DISTRICT, RAJASTAN STATE, PIN-306 421.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI RAM SINGH K, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 018, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI VENKAT SANTHYANRAYANA.A, HCGP)

¶16

¶17

CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.1954/2022 (CRIME

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:2710 CRL.P No. 13630 of 2023

¶19

NO.60/2022) OF RESPONDENT CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION, BENGLAURU, REGISTERED FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 381, 302, 120B R/W S. 34 AND 35 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-62), BENGALURU, ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This is a successive petition filed by the petitioner - accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge him on bail in SC No.1954/2022 pending on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-62), Bengaluru arising out of CC No.28115/2022 before XXIV Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru and Cr. No.60/2022 of Chamarajpet Police Station and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 381, 302, 120B read with Sections 34 and 35 of IPC.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent - State.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 is said to be the servant of the deceased - Jagraj Jain and he was in need of Rs.5,00,000/- for house expenses. He requested a loan from the deceased, but the deceased denied giving it to accused No.1. Thereafter, accused No.1 found huge gold and

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:2710 CRL.P No. 13630 of 2023

¶26

silver articles and cash kept in the house of the deceased. Therefore, he hatched a plan with accused No.4 for committing dacoity in the house of his employer. Accused No.1 contacted accused No.4 to send some persons to execute the plan. Then, accused No.4 is said to be given the telephone number of accused No.2 for getting assistance for commit davoity. But accused No.2 did not agree, therefore, accused No.1 once again contacted accused No.4 for assistance. Accused No.4 asked accused No.1 to contact accused No.3 for assistance, the present petitioner and told his brother will also help. Thereafter, they hatched a conspiracy. On 24.05.2022 in the late night hours. Accused No.1 came in side the house, committed murder of the deceased and took away the gold ornaments, silver articles and cash with the help of accused No.2. Subsequently, they went to the shop of the petitioner - accused No.3 and handover gold ornaments to keep it in custody. Accused No.4 along with accused No.5 took Rs.45,00,000/- for labour charges. The Police recovered the said sum along with gold articles from them.

¶27

The petitioner - accused No.3 was arrested on 02.06.2022 and remanded to judicial custody. Two petitions

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:2710 CRL.P No. 13630 of 2023

¶29

filed earlier by the petitioner for the relief of bail, came to be rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner had also filed one more bail petition before this Court in Crl.P. No.71/2003, this Court by an order dated 15.03.2023 dismissed the said petition. Hence, once again the petitioner is before this Court seeking for similar relief of bail.

¶30

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the petitioner is in custody for more than one and a half years and the trial is not yet began and there is contradiction in the statement of witnesses and he has not committed murder of the deceased, but he was murdered by accused No.1. Therefore, he prayed for grant of bail.

¶31

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent - State seriously objected to the bail petition and contended that the shop of this petitioner is in Goa and CCTV footage was also recovered by the Police. Therefore the circumstantial evidence clearly connects the petitioner with the crime. Hence, he prayed for rejection of the bail petition.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and

¶33

learned HCGP for respondent - State and on perusing the same,

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:2710 CRL.P No. 13630 of 2023

¶35

it is clear that this petitioner has not directly participated in the crime. The accused No.1 contacted accused No.4 for taking assistance of the persons for committing dacoity. Accused No.4 suggested the name of this petitioner and this petitioner was contacted by the accused No.1 and they hatched the plan to commit the murder of the deceased and to loot the gold ornaments, silver articles and cash. Accordingly, accused No.1 went to the house of his employer and committed murder of the deceased and brought huge cash along with 8 kgs of gold and silver articles, it was handed over to the possession of the petitioner and cash was recovered from other accused.

¶36

On earlier occasion this Court rejected the bail petition of the petitioner and now the only contention urged by the learned counsel for petitioner is that the trial of the case is not yet began. By looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner and others address is shown as Goa and Rajasthan. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the trial Court is not framing the charges though all the accused persons are in custody.

¶37

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that this is a case of murder for gain. Even the

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:2710 CRL.P No. 13630 of 2023

¶39

petitioner and other accused are all from different States and if bail is granted securing their presence is very much difficult and trial would be delayed. Therefore, if the direction is given to the trial Court to dispose of the matter within a time frame, which will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following order:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) The petition is dismissed.;

¶42

(ii) The trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter

¶43

(iii) within nine months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order by following the directions issued as per the Circular dated 01.09.2023 referring to Crl.P. No.6243/2023 in the case of ANSU @ ANSAR ALI vs STATE OF

¶44

KARNATAKA - DD 10.08.2023.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

¶47

Puran Ram Devasi @ Puranram v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puran Ram Devasi @ Puranram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Philip William George Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Parthasarathy Sampathkumar Vs Zuri Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Sri Sunil G Vs Police Inspector (S.H.O)

Vijay Kumar H M Vs State by Parappana

Suresh Jain Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Peter Sanjay Mudartha Vs State of Karnataka