Allowed

Sri. Santhosh Kumar @ Gunda v. State by

Karnataka HC27 May 2024CRL.P/1696/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench of the High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal petition filed by five accused persons seeking bail in a murder and arms-related case, permitting them to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed bail in Crime No.87/2023 on bond of Rs.2,00,000/- each with two sureties each, subject to conditions against offending, tampering, and irregular attendance.

Sri. Santhosh Kumar @ Gunda Vs State by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:17607 CRL.P No. 1696 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MAY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1696 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR @ GUNDA, S/O SRI. ESHWAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT PUMP HOUSE STREET, HIRIYURU, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 302.

¶8

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

SRI. SURENDRA @ AUTO SURI, S/O SRI .RAVINDRA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NEAR CHANNEL, ASHWATH NAGARA, HOSAMANE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 302.

¶10

SRI. MANJUNATH K @ BIDDA, S/O SRI. KATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT 2^ND CROSS NEAR CHANNEL, KUVEMPU NAGARA, HOSAMANE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 302.

¶11

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:17607 CRL.P No. 1696 of 2024

¶12

SRI. VIJAY KUMAR @ PAWAR, S/O SRI. VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NEAR IRON SHOP, BHUTANAGUDI, GANDHI CIRCLE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 302.

¶13

SRI. VENKATESHA @ LOOSE, S/O SRI. LAXMAN SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NEAR KUKKEVADESHWARI TEMPLE, BARANDURU HALLIKERE POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT- 577 302.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS C.H., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE BY: SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAPER TOWN POLICE STATION, BHADRAVATHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

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

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 5 WHO HAVE BEEN ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 ON BAIL S.C.NO.5066/2023 (CR.NO.87/2023) WHO HAVE BEEN ARRAYED AS ACCUSED

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:17607 CRL.P No. 1696 of 2024

¶22

NO.1 TO 5 RESPECTIVELY BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE i.e. STATE BY PAPER TOWN POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 25(1B)(B) OF THE ARMS ACT AND SEC. 120B, 302, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC WHICH HAS BEEN PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA, SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.87/2023 of Paper Town Police Station, pending in S.C.No.5066/2023 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, Sitting at Bhadravathi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant one Mr.Thoofiq Noori @ Mubarak.

¶26

Heard Sri. Srinivas C.H., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M.R.Patil, learned High Court

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:17607 CRL.P No. 1696 of 2024

¶28

Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the

¶29

material on record.

¶30

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

R E A S O N S

¶35

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 R/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶36

It is alleged that the deceased had caused the death of one Ramesh. A criminal case in S.C.No.5015/2023 is pending trial. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:17607 CRL.P No. 1696 of 2024

¶38

the present case are said to be the eye witnesses against the deceased in the said case. It is the contention of the prosecution that the deceased was pressurizing accused Nos.1 and 2 not to depose against him in the pending criminal case. It is alleged that the ghastly act of murder was caused by accused Nos.1 to 5 with conspiracy in furtherance of their common intention.

¶39

The petitioners were apprehended on 21.07.2023 and they are in judicial custody since then. Admittedly, the investigation is already completed and charge sheet is filed. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence i.e., recovery of the weapons said to have been used in the commission of the offence. The recovery of the weapons at the instance of the accused will have to be proved by the prosecution at the time of trial. It is stated that even though few criminal cases were registered against accused Nos.1 and 2, they are already acquitted in all those cases. Under such circumstances, it cannot be

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:17607 CRL.P No. 1696 of 2024

¶41

said that the petitioners are having any criminal antecedents. The prosecution has cited in all 44 witnesses. The examination of all these witnesses will take sufficiently longer period of time. Detention of the petitioners in custody would amount to infringement of their right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners

¶42

are entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶43

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The petition is allowed.

¶46

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.87/2023 of Paper Town Police Station, on obtaining a bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:17607 CRL.P No. 1696 of 2024

¶49

Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶50

a). The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

On furnishing of the sureties by the petitioners, 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 petitioners and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:17607 CRL.P No. 1696 of 2024

¶56

¶57

5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioners on bail.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Sri. Santhosh Kumar @ Gunda v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Santhosh Kumar @ Gunda v. State 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

Ravikumar M N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh T @ Venkatesh Gowda Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Ashwin Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Pooja. C Vs State of Karnataka by

Shridhara @ Suman G K Vs the State of Karnataka

Pradeep Vs State of Karnataka