Allowed

Mr Srinivasa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2024CRL.P/6619/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.2 in a murder case sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., charged with instigating accused No.1 over phone; he was not at the scene nor inflicted injuries. Finding detention amounted to pre-trial punishment, the court enlarged him on bail with a bond of Rs.2,00,000, two sureties and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No.27/2024 on Rs.2,00,000 bond with two sureties and conditions; cancellation permitted on violation.

Mr Srinivasa Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:26863 CRL.P No. 6619 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6619 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. SRINIVASA, S/O CHIKKAVENKATARAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT VANGIMALLU VILLAGE, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALAPURA DISTRICT

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001 THROUGH BATLAHALLI POLICE STATION.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.CRIMINAL NO.26/2024 IN PURSUANCE OF THE FIR FILED IN CR.NO.27/2024 FILED BY THE BATLAHALLI POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 323,302,114 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2nd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:26863 CRL.P No. 6619 of 2024

¶17

JUDGE CHIKKABALLAPURA SITTING AT CHINTAMANI PENDING CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court

¶21

seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.27/2024 of Batlahalli Police Station, pending in S.C.No.26/2024, on the file of the learned 2^nd Additional District and Sessions Judge Chikkaballapura, Chintamani, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 302, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant viz., Srinatha V.N.

¶22

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

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26863 CRL.P No. 6619 of 2024

¶24

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶25

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

R E A S O N S

¶29

The petitioner being accused No.2 is seeking

¶30

grant of bail. He was apprehended on 16.05.2024 and, since then, he is in judicial custody. Initially, the son of the deceased lodged the first information against accused Nos.1 to 4. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶31

It is the specific contention of the prosecution that as per the charge sheet, the present petitioner had called accused No.1 and instigated him to cause the death

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:26863 CRL.P No. 6619 of 2024

¶33

of the deceased and thereafter, accused No.1 assaulted the deceased and her daughter viz., Ramalakshmamma and Shobha with a club and also assaulted the deceased with a sickle causing fatal injuries. It is pertinent to note that accused No.1 is the son-in-law of the deceased. The only allegation against the present petitioner is that he instigated accused No.1 to cause the death of the deceased, over phone. Admittedly, the petitioner was not at the scene of occurrence nor he inflicted any injuries. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation or that he is having any criminal antecedents. Considering the nature of the allegations, I am of the opinion that detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. Hence, reasonable conditions may be imposed while enlarging him on bail, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶34

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶35

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:26863 CRL.P No. 6619 of 2024

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed.

¶39

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.27/2024 of Batlahalli Police Station, on obtaining the 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:

¶40

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:26863 CRL.P No. 6619 of 2024

¶46

¶47

verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties

¶48

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.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Mr Srinivasa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Srinivasa v. the 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

Chikkanna Vs State by Molakalmuru Police

Mr. Jnanarubin Anthoni Mutthu @ Rubin Vs the State of Karnataka

Shashanka C U Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Revanna B Vs State of Karnataka

Ganesh @ Koti Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Ashok Vs State by