Dismissed

Prakash v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024CRL.P/4458/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Crl.P. No.4458 of 2024 seeking regular bail for murder offences, the Court rejected the petition. It held that since the testimony of last-seen and recovery witnesses was examined, the petitioner could avail the earlier liberty granted to re-approach after examining material witnesses. However, not all material witnesses were examined, forcing the Court to decline exercising discretion and re

What did the court decide?

Bail petition rejected; liberty from previous order of January 2, 2023 remains unaffected for final disposal.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20729 CRL.P No. 4458 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. 4458 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PRAKASH S/O GANAPATH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT WATER TANK ROAD, FM MAHESH COMPLEX HOOTAGALLI MYSURU-570 018

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BY YELWALA POLICE STATION MYSURU-571130 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.231/2024 (CR.NO.93/2021 REGISTERED BY YELAWALA P.S., MYSURU DISTRICT) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 120B R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20729 CRL.P No. 4458 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This is a successive bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.93/2021 of Yelawala Police Station, Mysore South Circle, Mysuru District, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶22

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

¶23

This petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.8980/2022. This Court vide order dated 02.01.2023 after hearing the matter at length, when permission was sought, permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Court after examination of the material witnesses. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that material witnesses i.e., last seen witness C.W.5 has been examined as P.W.3 and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. The counsel would submit that recovery witness has been examined i.e., C.W.18 as P.W.2 and in total six witnesses have been examined and this petitioner is in custody from 2021. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20729 CRL.P No. 4458 of 2024

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that recovery witness i.e., P.W.2 has supported the case of the prosecution with regard to recovery of bat at the instance of this petitioner. Apart from that, he also would submit that P.W.3, who is last seen witness also supported the case of the prosecution in part and particularly, he has deposed with regard to giving of 164 statement before the learned Magistrate. This Court also earlier rejected the bail petition having considered 164 statement given before the learned Magistrate. He had supported the case of the prosecution in part during trial. Hence, the matter has to be appreciated by the Trial Court and this Court cannot appreciate the same sitting under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. He also would submit that FSL report supports the case of the prosecution with regard to the blood stains found in the bat and also brought to notice of this Court regarding seizure of blood stained clothes at the instance of this petitioner. Hence, this Court cannot exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, P.W.2 is the mahazar witness with regard to

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20729 CRL.P No. 4458 of 2024

¶28

recovery of cricket bat and clothes at the instance of this petitioner and FSL report is also positive with regard to the stains found in the cricket bat and clothes and FSL witnesses have not been examined. Apart from that, P.W.3 is the last seen witness and though he turned hostile in part, he categorically deposed with regard to giving of statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. When such being the case, this Court cannot sit and consider the evidence and the same is the job of the Trial Court and this Court sitting under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court. No doubt, this Court earlier given liberty to approach this Court after examination of material witnesses, all the material witnesses have not been examined. Hence, at this juncture, I do not find any ground to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

¶29

Accordingly, the bail petition is rejected.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

¶32

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72

Prakash v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash 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

Sathisha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Sanna Eeraiah Vs Smt. Deviramma