Successive bail application in a murder case where FSL report confirmed blood stains matching the deceased on the petitioner's shirt and pant seized at his instance, and a hostile eye witness admitted witnessing the incident in cross-examination. Bail rejected for want of changed circumstances.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:49173 CRL.P No. 5013 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5013 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JUDHAV, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.213/2021 OF CHITRADURGA TOWN P.S., CHITRADURGA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120(b), 302 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:49173 CRL.P No. 5013 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
victim from the mobile of this petitioner and made him to come to the spot and committed the murder.
jeans pant belongs to the petitioner and the same was recovered at the instance of the petitioner and FSL report clearly discloses that stains with ‘O’ group blood and the same blood group belongs to the deceased and the accused has to explain the same in his 313 statement. Apart from
NC: 2024:KHC:49173 CRL.P No. 5013 of 2024
that though CW11-PW2 turned hostile who is eye witness, but in the cross-examination answer is elicited with regard to the witnessing the incident of committing the murder. The counsel also would submits that the specific overt act allegation is made against the petitioner is that he has dropped the stone on his head and the stone is also seized at the spot and when the witness was cross examined and given the answer witnessing the incident, this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and appreciate the evidence available on record and Trial Court has to appreciate the evidence.
the counsel appearing for the respondent-State, no doubt this Court earlier given the liberty to approach this Court after the receipt of FSL report. Now, the FSL report is placed before this Court and FSL report is positive that particularly Sl Nos.11 and 12 items i.e., shirt and pant seized at the instance of the petitioner sent to the FSL report is also positive and the same is stained with ‘O’ group blood belongs to the deceased and there is a force in
the contention of the counsel appearing for the Staterespondent that accused has to explain the same in 313 statement. Apart from that when the witness has been examined before the Trial Court as eye witness i.e., PW2, though he turned hostile, but in the cross-examination answer is elicited from the mouth regarding witnessing the incident and the same has to be appreciated by the Trial Court and this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court sitting under Section 439 of Cr.P.C and also under Section 483 of BNSS. Hence, I do not find any ground to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. The material also discloses that PW1 to PW15 have been examined and remaining witnesses requires to be examined before the Trial Court. Hence, the other circumstantial witnesses who have witnessed the petitioner before the murder also to be examined before the Trial Court and their evidence also to be appreciated by the Trial Court. Hence, I do not find any ground except examining some of the witnesses, no changed circumstances to exercise the discretion in a successive bail petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:49173 CRL.P No. 5013 of 2024
the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Petition is rejected.
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a successive bail petition after receipt of the FSL report discloses changed circumstances warranting bail under Section 439 CrPC in a Section 302 IPC case.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Hassen @ Babu S/o Jakeer Husain
State of Karnataka by Chitradurga Town Police
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
