Accused No.2 in a house-theft-turned-murder case sought bail under Section 439 CrPC. Court found prima facie material including recovery of a blood-stained lock and gloves with chilli powder, risk of tampering and absconding, and prior dismissal of other co-accuseds' bail petitions. Petition dismissed.
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:368 CRL.P No. 5816 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5816 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. MURALI NAYAK S/O GANDHI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.443, 1ST CROSS, PAPPAIAH REDDY BUILDING, NEAR SHILPA ENTERPRISES, MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 037 (IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) HAVING UTP NO.3915 OF 2022
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DARSHAVARDHAN B.G., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BENIGN J.L. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
NC: 2024:KHC:368 CRL.P No. 5816 of 2023
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR. NO.75/2022 REGISTERED BY HALASURU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU (CCH-29) IN S.C.NO.1421/2022.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is by the accused No.2 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of bail in Crime No.75/2022 registered by Halasuru Police, Bengaluru, and pending trial in S.C. No.1421/2002 before the XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) .
petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
NC: 2024:KHC:368 CRL.P No. 5816 of 2023
No.75/2022 against an unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:368 CRL.P No. 5816 of 2023
persons came in the car. They stopped the car in the front of the house of the deceased and accused Nos.2 to 5 went from the back door of the house and assaulted the deceased with lock and strangulated him and committed his murder. However, they did not find any huge amount in the house of the deceased but they were able to get Rs.4,000/- from the drawer of the table in the house of the deceased apart from the iPhone and went back after sprinkling the chilli powder in order to avoid the sniffer dog to follow them as per the advice given by the accused No.1. During the investigation, the Police arrested this petitioner on 14.04.2022 and he was remanded to judicial custody. His earlier bail petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 10.08.2022. Hence, once again the petitioner is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:368 CRL.P No. 5816 of 2023
committed the murder of Suresh. However, thereafter, he has changed the version in his further statement taking the name of accused No.1. There are two different versions of statement of the complainant and even though he knew the accused No.1, he had not disclosed his name in the statement. The learned counsel further contended that the fingerprint expert’s opinion reveals that only the fingerprint of the accused No.3 but not of the petitioner, was found on the door in the house of the deceased. The gloves alleged to have been used by the accused have been recovered from a drainage and the fact that it contained chilli powder is not believable. He further contended that the CCTV footage was also not recovered by the Police in order to show that the petitioner and other accused came in a car to the house of the deceased and nobody stated about the arrival of the accused persons in the car except stating that they heard some noise. Therefore, there is no prima facie material against the present petitioner for having involved in the offence or for rejecting the bail petition. He further contended that the petitioner is in custody for more than 1½ years. The charge sheet was filed long back and his involvement in the commission of offence is not confirmed.
NC: 2024:KHC:368 CRL.P No. 5816 of 2023
NC: 2024:KHC:368 CRL.P No. 5816 of 2023
The accused No.1 thinking that the deceased was having huge money in the house, wanted to commit theft of money. Hence, the accused No.1 conspired with the accused No.2 i.e., present petitioner and thereafter, accused Nos.3 to 5 were also brought along with accused No.2 and then they conspired to commit theft and they all decided that if anybody obstructed, they decided to kill him. Subsequently, as per the plan, accused No.1 went to the house of the deceased, he spoke with him and had coffee with him and while talking, he had opened the back door of the house and got chilli powder in the kitchen and informed the other accused about the plan. Accused Nos.2 to 5 came inside the house from the back door of the house of the deceased and assaulted the deceased with a lock by tying his legs and committed his murder by strangulating him and thereafter, they looted Rs.4,000/- which was lying in the drawer of the table in the house of the deceased and fled from the back door of the house by sprinkling the chilli powder. Of course, the complainant has not stated in his complaint about the arrival of the accused No.1 or any other accused to the house of the deceased. However, during the investigation and further statement, the complainant has stated that he noticed
that the accused No.1 was coming and wandering in the house of the deceased. The same was noticed by the deceased and suspected the fear of assault over him. However, the offence was committed and murder took place in the house of the deceased. During the investigation, the Police arrested the present petitioner along with the other accused. They recovered the blood stained lock and the gloves which contained the chilli powder apart from the iPhone of the deceased. The issue whether chilli powder found in the gloves is believable or not, is a matter of appreciation of evidence after the trial. But, the fact remains that recovery of gloves containing chilli powder was made by the Police and the death of Suresh is not in dispute. Accused No.1 was employed by the deceased for looking after his mother and the present petitioner being the brother of the accused No.1 conspired with the accused No.1 and others and committed a cold-blooded murder of the deceased. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charges are already framed by the Trial Court and recording of the evidence of witnesses has commenced. Though the fingerprint of the petitioner is not found on the door in the house of the deceased whereas the fingerprint of the
NC: 2024:KHC:368 CRL.P No. 5816 of 2023
accused No.3 was found on the door, that itself is not a ground for allowing the bail petition. If the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution witnesses and absconding from the case and delaying the process of law. Apart from that, earlier bail petitions filed by the other accused persons i.e., accused Nos.4 and 5 have been dismissed by coordinate Benches of this Court. Such being the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
Accordingly, the bail petition filed by the petitioner - accused No.2 is hereby dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
1 issue framed by the court
Whether accused No.2 in a circumstantial-evidence murder and conspiracy case should be granted regular bail under Section 439 CrPC.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Murali Nayak s/o Gandhi
State of Karnataka represented by Halasuru Police Station
Sri. Shreyas s/o Chandrashekhar
K.NATARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
