Dismissed

Dileep Kumara v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2024CRL.P/1457/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.3 in a murder case sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. His earlier bail petition on similar grounds was dismissed on merits, with liberty to approach the trial court after material witnesses were examined. As no material witnesses had been examined and the earlier rejection considered the same contentions, the court answered the point in the negative.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dileep Kumara Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:19238 CRL.P No. 1457 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1457 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

DILEEP KUMARA S/O CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶8

PERMANENT R/O 6^TH HOSAKOTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUSHALNAGARA TQ, KODAGU, KARNATAK.

¶9

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

PRESENTLY R/AT SIDALINGAPPA ROAD, LAGGERE 5^TH CROSS, RAJAGOPALANAGARA, BANGALORE, BANGALORE CITY, KARNATAKA.

¶11

(BY SRI. SANDEEPA S H., ADVOCATE)

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HASSAN KONANUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19238 CRL.P No. 1457 of 2024

¶16

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 560 009

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.142/2022 (CR.NO.15/2022) OF KONANUR P.S., HASSAN DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.15/2022 of Konanur Police Station, on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Hassan, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant viz., Manjunatha B.C.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19238 CRL.P No. 1457 of 2024

¶24

Heard Sri.Sandeep S.H., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶25

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶26

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶27

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶28

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative' for the following:

¶29

R E A S O N S

¶30

The petitioner - accused No.3 is before this

¶31

court seeking grant of bail. It is noticed that the petitioner had filed Crl.P.No.11352/2022 on similar grounds seeking grant of bail. The said petition came to be dismissed on

¶32

merits vide order dated 14.02.2023. At the time of dismissal of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19238 CRL.P No. 1457 of 2024

¶34

had sought liberty to file similar application before the trial court after examination of material witnesses. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that PWs 1, 2, 7 to 14 are the material witnesses. Therefore, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to move the trial court after examination of the aforesaid material witnesses, if he is advised to do so.

¶35

Admittedly, none of the material witnesses were examined before the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner again contends that there are no prima facie materials against the petitioner and he is falsely implicated in the matter.

¶36

Similar contentions are already considered and his bail application was rejected by forming an opinion that there are prima facie material which suggest his involvement by giving elaborate reasons. I do not find any reason to re-consider the same.

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:19238 CRL.P No. 1457 of 2024

¶38

¶39

7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶40

negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is dismissed .

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Dileep Kumara v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dileep Kumara v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Prakasha T S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shaik Rahil @ Shakil Baig Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Syed Akbar Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Ashok Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

C Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mahadevamurthy H M Vs State of Karnataka through