Allowed

Sathisha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024CRL.P/3307/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Successive regular bail application in a murder case under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. All material witnesses examined at trial had turned hostile. The court held non-examination of the Doctor and FSL Officer was no ground to deny bail and enlarged the petitioner on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail on personal bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions against witness tampering and requiring appearance and stay within jurisdiction.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20730 CRL.P No. 3307 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3307 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SATHISHA

¶10

S/O DYAVEGOWDA @ PAPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O MOSALEHOSAHALLI VILLAGE, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573220.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

BY GORUR POLICE, SHANTHIGRAMA CIRCLE, HASSAN DISTRICT, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560001.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.79/2022 (CR.NO.139/2021) OF GORURU P.S., HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 R/W 34 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN IN S.C.NO.79/2022.

¶20

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

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20730 CRL.P No. 3307 of 2024

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This is a successive bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.139/2021 of Goruru Police Station, Shantigrama Circle, Hassan for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶25

This petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.4787/2022 and this Court rejected the bail petition on 14.06.2022 and given direction to dispose of the matter as soon as possible. Now, the eye witnesses, complainant and recovery witnesses are examined before the Trial Court and none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The records also reveal that accused No.1, who is the petitioner herein is the son of the deceased and accused No.3 is the brother of accused No.2. It is also evident that accused No.2 was dropped while drafting the charge-sheet and only accused Nos.1 and 3 have faced the trial.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:20730 CRL.P No. 3307 of 2024

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also produced the certified copy of the deposition of P.Ws.1 to 16 and all the important witnesses are examined, including eye witnesses and recovery witnesses and none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The counsel also would contend that this Court has granted bail in favour of accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.10251/2023 vide order dated 08.01.2024, wherein the facts are similar and this Court granted bail on the ground that none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.

¶29

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that Doctor and FSL Officer has to be examined before the Court and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, when the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has exercised the discretion in favour of the accused No.3 after examination of witnesses C.Ws.2, 3, 5 and 6, who are eye witnesses to the incident. Non-examination of Doctor and FSL

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20730 CRL.P No. 3307 of 2024

¶32

Officer is not a ground to reject the bail petition of the petitioner, since eye witnesses have been examined and there is no incriminating material found at this juncture against the petitioner. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, I pass the following:-

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶35

petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime Crime No.139/2021 of Goruru Police Station, Shantigrama Circle, Hassan for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶37

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20730 CRL.P No. 3307 of 2024

¶40

dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶41

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court, till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69

Sathisha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathisha v. State of Karnataka

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

V Bhasker Naidu, Vs Mayamma

Shivanna N E Vs Sri Veerupaksha S v

Sri Manchappa K Vs the Chief Secretary

K. Shreedhar Dixith Vs K. L. Ramesh

Sri. Sanna Eeraiah Vs Smt. Deviramma

Prakash Vs State of Karnataka