Allowed

Nithin S Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024CRL.P/7201/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the bail petition of an accused in a murder case. The Court granted bail despite the accused's criminal antecedents, citing the Investigating Officer's failure to conduct a test identification parade despite eye witnesses proving a lapses that were serious and could not be cured, and reliance on insufficient recovery.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No. 111/2021 on obtaining bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties.

Nithin S Shetty Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36112 CRL.P No. 7201 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7201 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NITHIN S SHETTY, S/O SURESH R SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT ARCHANA NILAYA, MIG-46, HUDCO COLONY, SHIVAMOGGA-577 301

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THIRTHAHALLI P.S., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.123/2021 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.111/2021 OF THIRTHAHALLI POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 397, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, THIRTHAHALLI SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:36112 CRL.P No. 7201 of 2024

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No. 111/2021 of Thirthahalli Police Station pending in Spl.C.No.123/2021 on the file of the learned III Addl. District and Sessions Court, Shivamogga, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 397, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Smt. Nirmala.

¶20

Heard Sri. Prasad B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶21

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36112 CRL.P No. 7201 of 2024

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

R E A S O N S

¶26

The petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 15.06.2021 and since then, he is in judicial custody.

¶27

The informant being the eye witness to the incident filed the first information making specific allegations against two unknown persons. Later, accused Nos.1 and 2 were apprehended. It is stated that T-shirt and cash of Rs.1,000/with wallet were recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. After investigation, the charge sheet is filed. As per the post mortem report, the deceased had sustained as many as 22 injuries and the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury sustained.

¶28

The prosecution has cited C.Ws. 1, 3 to 8 as eye witnesses to the incident and their statements were recorded

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:36112 CRL.P No. 7201 of 2024

¶31

after apprehension of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Even in the statement of eye witnesses, they have referred to the accused as some unknown persons. Admittedly, the petitioner was not familiar to any of the eye witnesses. However, the Investigating Officer has not thought it fit to conduct the test identification parade to identify the accused. Therefore, the prosecution is relying only on one circumstance i.e., the recovery of the clothes, uma-gold chain and jerkin belonging to the deceased at the instance of accused No.2. When there are eye witnesses to the incident and when there are no reason for not hold test identification parade, I do not find any reason to detain the petitioner in custody even though, it is stated that the petitioner having criminal antecedents. The lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer is very serious and the same cannot be cured.

¶32

Considering these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:36112 CRL.P No. 7201 of 2024

¶35

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶36

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed.

¶39

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime

¶40

No. 111/2021 of Thirthahalli Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with

¶41

two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶42

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as

¶46

stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶47

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36112 CRL.P No. 7201 of 2024

¶49

documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties 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.

¶50

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶51

SS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4

Nithin S Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nithin S Shetty 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

Smt M Rathnamma Vs Smt Savithri Bai

A Sumanth Vs State by White Field Police

Sri Shankaranarayana Bhat Vs Sri Ramachandra a Shet

Sri. Ranjith @ Sanjay Vs the State of Karnataka by

C P Prasanna S/O Prabhakaran Vs M Rajan S/O Kuttappan

K Rudramuni Vs O Hemanna