High Court of Karnataka dismissed a bail petition in a murder case. The Court rejected the argument that there were no overt act allegations, citing corroborative witness and medical evidence, and deemed it not a fit case for bail.
Bail petition rejected; liberty to approach court after recording specific witnesses' evidence.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4419 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI MUNEER @ SYED MUNEER @ MUNAVAR KHAN S/O AMIN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3RD CROSS, NEAR AUTO STAND, INDIRA COTTAGE, CHANNAPATTANA, CHANNAPATTANA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LOKESH S.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M BY CHANNAPATTANA RURAL POLICE STATION, Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.199/2020 REGISTERED BY CHANNAPATNA RURLA POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 201, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.
NC: 2024:KHC:19786 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent/State.
petitioner has arraigned as accused No.2. Accused No.1 inflicted the injury on the neck of the victim at the first instance and thereafter, this petitioner snatched the dragon from accused No.1 and inflicted injury on the chest. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court to the PM report which discloses that the first injury is a stab injury over the anterior aspect of chest about 3 cm x 2 cm; second injury is also stab injury over the left below and another injury is also a stab injury on the left arm and left hand small cut lacerated injury. These injuries are corresponding with the overt act allegation made against this petitioner. Hence, the petitioner’s counsel’s submission that there is no overt act allegation against this petitioner cannot be accepted.
to note that earlier this Court having taken note of the statement of CW2 and CW3, cancelled the bail granted to this petitioner in Crl.P.No.No.1596/2022 in coming to the conclusion that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court is nothing but capricious and perverse when there are eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C also recorded. The counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no overt act allegation against this petitioner. But the statement of CW2 and CW3 is very clear that accused No.1 handed over the dragon to this petitioner and also categorically submits that there was a quarrel between the victim and accused No.1 and also categorically says that accused No.1 was having the dragon and this petitioner also joined to the said galata and in the said galata one person has sustained bleeding injury. When such statements are made, the very contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there is no any overt act allegation against this petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage. Apart from that the learned HCGP brought to notice of this Court that the weapon which was used was recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. The heinous offence of murder is charged against this petitioner. When such being the
case, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of this petitioner.
following:
ORDER
The bail petition is rejected.
The petitioner is given liberty to approach the Court after
recording the evidence of CW2 and CW3 and recovery witnesses.
Sd/JUDGE
SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to enlargement on bail in a murder case where his overt acts are corroborated by eye-witness statements and medical report.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Muneer @ Syed Muneer @ Munavar Khan
State of Karnataka
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
