Allowed

Prabhugouda v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2024CRL.P/201117/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka considered a criminal bail petition filed under Sections 439 Cr.P.C. and 483 B.N.S.S 2023 for murder charges. The Court allowed the petition, granting bail on the ground that other co-accusants had already been released on similar grounds, noting the case relies on circumstantial evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed bail on execution of personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties subject to conditions regarding witness tampering, appearance, and jurisdiction.

Prabhugouda Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8760 CRL.P No. 201117 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201117 OF 2024 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PRABHUGOUDA S/O. BHEEMANGOUDA BIRADAR, AGE. 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O. SIDDAPUR ‘B’ VILLAGE, TQ: HUNASAGI, DISTRICT YADGIRI-585215.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. M. S. ASTAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SHORAPUR POLICE STATION, TALUKA SHORAPUR, DISTRICT YADGIRI, (REP. BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT: KALABURAGI-585107.

¶15

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.11.25 10:44:35 +0530

¶16

BHIMANGOUDA S/O. MALLESHAPPAGOUDA HIREGOUDAR, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BALABHATTI, TQ: YADRAMI, DISTRICT: KALABURAGI-585325.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)

¶19

THIS CRL. PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C (OLD), U/S. 483 OF B.N.S.S 2023 (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO. 03/2023 OF SHORAPUR P.S DIST. YADGIRI, PENDING ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE YADGIRI IN SC NO. 40/2023, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 302, 201, 109, 120(B) R/W. SEC. 34 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8760 CRL.P No. 201117 of 2024

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶26

The petitioner/accused No.2 has filed this petition

¶27

under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for grant of bail in Sessions Case No.40 of 2023 registered by Shorapur Police Station, Yadgiri, pending on the file of learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 and 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC').

¶28

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:

¶29

Accused Nos.1 and 4 are brothers. They had grudge against the husband of C.W.21/Smt. Mosabi, as her husband, Chandsab (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') had developed illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.4 by name Reshma(C.W.33) and made her to stay in his house. As such, on 29.08.2022, accused Nos.1 and 4

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8760 CRL.P No. 201117 of 2024

¶31

engaged the petitioner/accused No.2 and accused No.3 and on 01.09.2022, they entered into a contract of killing, to which, accused No.4 paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to eliminate the deceased. Thereafter, a conspiracy was hatched as they hired a car bearing registration No.KA-21 N-1512 belonging to C.W.31 through C.W.30, and on 04.09.2022, accused No.2 called the deceased to his house for electrical work, and accordingly, the deceased agreed to come near the cross and when the deceased arrived near Devapur cross, they took the deceased near Kodekal main canal, wherein accused No.1 got enraged with the deceased for his illegal intimacy with the wife of accused No.4 and abused him in filthy language and when he caught hold of him, the petitioner/accused No.2 and accused No.3 throttled the neck of deceased with a rope brought by them and when the deceased became unconscious, they tied his hands and legs, put him in the trunk (dikki) of the car brought by them and started to drove the car towards main canal and on hearing the sound from the trunk (dikki), they opened and noticed that

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8760 CRL.P No. 201117 of 2024

¶33

deceased was still alive in the car, as such, accused No.3 with a pump kept in the car, assaulted Chandsab on his head and accused No.1 and the petitioner/accused No.2 also assaulted on his head with big boulders and thereby, committed the murder of the deceased and wrapped the dead body in a gunny bag and threw the deadbody into a canal. Hence, CW.1 lodged the complaint. This led to registration of FIR and investigation. The Investigating Officer has conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1- State.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Absolutely, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and there is no prima-facie material against the petitioner. The petitioner/accused No.2 is only earning member of his

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8760 CRL.P No. 201117 of 2024

¶37

family and having old aged parents and he is ready to abide by any of the conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶38

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State has filed statement of objections and contended that there is prima-facie material against the petitioner. Accused No.2 is involved in heinous offence under Section 302 of the IPC and there is sufficient material with regard to intention, preparation and attempt on his part. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of him fleeing away from justice and tampering with the prosecution witnesses and he would hamper the trial. Hence, learned HCGP prayed to reject the petition.

¶39

On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that deceased Chandsab had developed illicit relationship with wife of accused No.4, made her to stay in a separate house along with him, thus, accused Nos.1 and 4 engaged the petitioner/accused No.2 and accused

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8760 CRL.P No. 201117 of 2024

¶41

No.3 to eliminate the deceased. Thus, the

¶42

petitioner/accused No.2 and accused No.3 took the deceased and committed his murder in the manner stated above. From the perusal of the post-mortem examination report, it goes to show that the death of deceased Chandsab was due to result of head injury.

¶43

On perusal of the charge-sheet material, it appears that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Investigation was completed in the month of February 2023. Accused No.2 is in custody since from 29.11.2022. Soon after the committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, till date, no progress is made in S.C.No.40/2023 by the trial Court.

¶44

In the case on hand, on similar ground and similar circumstances and allegations, accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were granted bail. Now, accused No.2 also sought for bail on the ground of parity.

¶45

It is well established principles of law that while

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8760 CRL.P No. 201117 of 2024

¶47

granting bail, the Court has to consider the nature of the offences, circumstances in which the offence is committed, position and status of the petitioner with reference to the victim and witnesses, likelihood of fleeing away from justice, of repeating same offences by the petitioner of tampering with the witnesses, character and antecedents of the petitioner. Law is well settled that while disposing of the bail petition, the Court need not scan the prosecution papers and hold a mini trial. Keeping all these factors in mind, when the Court goes through the entire material placed on record, it can be said that prima facie, there are no reasonable and sufficient grounds to believe, at this stage, that the petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged.

¶48

Considering the nature of the offences,

¶49

circumstances of the case, particularly, the allegations leveled against the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail in his favour.

¶50

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:8760 CRL.P No. 201117 of 2024

¶52

ORDER

¶53

a) The petition is allowed.

¶54

b) The petitioner/accused No.2 is directed to be

¶55

enlarged on bail in S.C.No.40/2023 on he executing a personal bond in a sum ofRs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two solvent sureties or for the like sum, to the satisfaction of Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶56

(i) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶57

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

¶58

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without leave of the Trial Court.

¶59

c) Violation of any of the conditions shall entail for

¶60

cancellation of bail.

¶61

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶62

SMM/ct-an List No.: 19 Sl No.: 4

Prabhugouda v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhugouda v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

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

Sri. Mallappa Ayyappa Jangwad Vs the State of Karnataka

Annappa S/O Basappa Dasyal Vs the State of Karnataka

Kiran S/O Shivanand Sannalingannavar Vs Smt. Poornima W/O. Kiran Sannalingannavar

Kuberappa S/O Dasappa Gollar, Vs the State of Karnataka

Narsappa and Anr. Vs the State

Pratibha D/O. Veerayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka