High Court of Karnataka dismissed the bail petition of accused No.2 in a murder case. The court found prima facie allegations sufficient given the nature of offenses, possibility of tampering with witnesses, and lack of parity with other accused.
Petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed; Trial Court directed to expedite trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9652 CRL.P No. 201047 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201047 OF 2024
(439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
LAXMAN S/O. AMBANNA METRE, AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUNATHIRTHAWADI VILLAGE, BASAWAKALYAN, DIST. BIDAR-585401.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHAL PRATAP SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Dharwad.
(BY SRI. SABUDDIN JAMADAR, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL. PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO THE PETITIONER ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.2 IN CRIME NO. 31/2023 REGISTERED BY THE BASAWAKALYANA RURAL POLICE STATION, BASAWAKALYAN, BIDAR AND CHARGED WITH OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 302, 201 R/W SEC. 149 OF THE IPC PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BASAWAKALYANA,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9652 CRL.P No. 201047 of 2024
DIST. BIDAR IN S.C NO. 5024/2023 MOST RESPECTFULLY AND HUMBLY PRAYS THIS HONOURABLE COURT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking grant of bail in SC No.5024/2023 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Basavaklayana, Bidar, (for short ‘the Trial Court’) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).
referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
14.02.2023 at about 10.00 p.m., the first information
lodged a complaint alleging that while he was going to his land by side of the bridge of NH 65, at that time, he saw the gross had been burn, hence he went towards a Katta, where he found a dead body aged between 20-30 years and he also found injuries on head, face, neck and left hand in half burn. Hence, a case was registered against unknown person for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner and other accused persons, interrogated them on 16.02.2023 and recorded their voluntary statements and subsequently, they were remanded to judicial custody.
misunderstanding between the couples and the deceased was always harassing accused No.3. The deceased was
having intimacy with other woman and therefore, he used to harass accused No.3. Accused No.1 is the elder brother
of accused No.3. As accused No.3 was not feeling well, accused No.1 had come to the place of accused No.3 to take her to the hospital and in the guise of taking to the hospital, he took her to his house. Thereafter, all the accused persons conspired together and committed the murder of the deceased on 13.02.2023 and thereafter, took the dead body to the land of first informant and burnt the dead body, which leads to registration of FIR and investigation.
petitioner-accused No.2 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. In this regard the petitioner approached the Trial Court seeking bail and the same was rejected by order dated 20.03.2023 in Crl. Misc. No.5125/2023. Hence, accused No.2 filed the present petition seeking grant of bail.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9652 CRL.P No. 201047 of 2024
petitioner-accused No.2 vehemently contended that the case was registered against unknown persons. Accused No.2 was arrested during investigation and he is in custody from almost 22 months. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and there are no serious overtacts alleged against accused No.2. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the Investigating Officer has not recovered any incriminating material at the instance of accused No.2. Though, the case
is based on circumstantial evidence, there are no last seen theory and motive is not established. The case diary clearly reveals that, prosecution case is based on inadmissible custodial confession before the police officer and suspicion. This is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. There is a glaring inconsistency in the case of prosecution.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9652 CRL.P No. 201047 of 2024
with accused No.1. Accused No.2 never conspired with other accused persons to commit murder. There is no material to show as to whether the recovered objects belong to the deceased. The prosecution is relying on the confession of accused persons that, the recovered items belong to the deceased. There is no prima facie material to establish that, the recovered item belongs to the deceased.
the deceased raised voice. Accused No.1 assaulted on the head of the deceased with shock-observer pipe of motorcycle and so also the petitioner-accused No.2 assaulted the deceased with stick and then in order to destroy the evidence, burnt the dead body in the land of first informant. Hence, there is a prima facie allegation against the petitioner-accused No.2, therefore he prayed to dismiss the petition.
all the accused persons conspired together to commit the murder of deceased. Accordingly, accused No.1, 5 and the petitioner assaulted the deceased with shock-observer pipe of motorcycle and stick and thereafter, burnt the dead body by transporting it in a gunny bag to the land of first informant. As per the post mortem report, cause of death is head injury. There is a prima facie allegation against accused No.2.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9652 CRL.P No. 201047 of 2024
confession before the police officer and it is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act; there is a glaring inconsistency in the case of prosecution. These aspects are also requires a full-fledged trial.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9652 CRL.P No. 201047 of 2024
considering the nature of the offences, circumstances of the case, particularly, the allegations leveled against the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail.
Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE
SMM/ct-an List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused No.2 charged with murder under Sections 302, 201 r/w 149 IPC.
Whether the principle of parity with accused persons granted bail applies to the present accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Co-Ordinate Bench of this CourtReferred¶10
3 provisions across 3 enactments
LAXMAN S/O. AMBANNA METRE
THE STATE
SOMASHANKAR S/O. GURULINGAPPA
VENKATESH NAIK T
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
VENKATESH NAIK T
Parties & counsel
