Allowed

Sri Shrishail v. the State by

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2024CRL.P/4047/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition was filed seeking bail for an accused charged with murder and destroying evidence of suicide. The High Court observed that circumstantial evidence requires rigorous examination and held that pre-trial detention amounted to punishment. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was released on bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum.

Sri Shrishail Vs the State by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:27273 CRL.P No. 4047 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4047 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SHRISHAIL S/O. KALLAPPA BAGANNAWA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O: HOLEHANGARGI VILLAGE, MAMADAPURA HOBLI, BABALESHWAR TALUK, VIJAYAPURA - 586 113 PRESENTLY IN CENTRAL PRISON.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SARAVANA .S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE BY ANUGONDANAHALLI POLICE STATION, HOSAKOTE SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU - 562 114 REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P I FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGING THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR.NO.97/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 201, 302 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT ANUGONDANAHALLI POLICE P.S., PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶15

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:27273 CRL.P No. 4047 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.97/2023 of Anugondanahalli Police Station, pending on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Nitinkumar.

¶19

Heard Sri. Saravana S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶20

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶21

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

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:27273 CRL.P No. 4047 of 2024

¶23

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

¶24

following:

¶25

R E A S O N S

¶26

Petitioner being the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 14.08.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody.

¶27

The informant, who noticed the dead body, which was half burnt, lying in the vacant place, lodged the first information against unknown person. During investigation, the petitioner was apprehended. After investigation, the charge sheet is filed. The prosecution has cited as many as 38 witnesses. Even though, there are no eye witnesses to the incident, the prosecution has relied on the statement of CW-28the cashier in the Bar, who said to have last seen the deceased in the company of the accused around 6.00 p.m. The other circumstances relied on by the prosecution is recovery of the bed sheet at the instance of the accused. As per the FSL report, the same was stained with B-group blood. Strangely, no materials are placed before the Court to show the blood group of the deceased. It is stated that the prosecution is relying on

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:27273 CRL.P No. 4047 of 2024

¶30

other circumstances to show that the petitioner had purchased the petrol after causing the death of the deceased for the purpose of burning the dead body.

¶31

All these circumstantial witnesses have to be examined before the trial Court to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Considering the nature of evidence collected by the investigating officer, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not liable to be detained in custody as the same would amount to pre-trial punishment. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is having any criminal antecedents. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶32

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶33

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed.

¶36

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.97/2023 of Anugondanahalli Police Station, on obtaining the

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:27273 CRL.P No. 4047 of 2024

¶38

bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶39

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, 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 petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

¶47

Sri Shrishail v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shrishail v. the 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

Sri. Revanna B Vs State of Karnataka

Ganesh @ Koti Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Ashok Vs State by

A Arjun @ Kulla, Vs State of Karnataka by

Mohammed Aleem Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Union Of India Vs Radhika Sehrai