Allowed

Mr Prayag Prayaga D G v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024CRL.P/7506/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail petition of an accused in a murder case, noting a delay of 4.5 years with no trial progress and re-examining witness tampering risks. Bail was granted with stringent conditions including a personal bond and restrictions on leaving the jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail subject to executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties and complying with stringent conditions.

Mr Prayag Prayaga D G Vs State of Karnataka by — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36810 CRL.P No. 7506 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7506 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR PRAYAG PRAYAGA D G S/O GOPI DASS, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.103 OPP. PRERANA MOTORS, HEBBAGODI, BENGALURU-560099.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B R.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI.RANGASWAMY R.,HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC, 1973 PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.688/2020 (CR.NO.108/2020) OF ASHOK NAGARA POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MAYO HALL, BENGLAURU (CCH-20).

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:36810 CRL.P No. 7506 of 2024

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the material on record.

¶22

This petition is preferred under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. by accused No.1 to enlarge him on bail in SC No.688/2020 pending on the file of XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayohall, Bengaluru (CCH-20).

¶23

Accused Nos.1 and 2 are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged that on 23.03.2020 when the deceased by name Nitin Kumar was bursting crackers during the funeral ceremony of the father of CW.3, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with him and

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36810 CRL.P No. 7506 of 2024

¶25

accused No.2 fisted on his face and accused No.1 i.e., the petitioner herein took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed him near his eyes, on account of which he sustained fatal injuries.

¶26

Crl.P.No.5666/2023 before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.. The said petition was dismissed on 01.12.2023,

¶27

reserving liberty to the petitioner to revive his bail petition if the trial is not concluded within six months.

¶28

The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the prayer for bail by an order dated 12.06.2024 observing that, very nature of the offence and the manner in which the incident has taken place clearly goes to show that due to the assault made by the accused persons, deceased succumbed to the injuries. The offences alleged are heinous in nature which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and if the petitioner is enlarged on

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36810 CRL.P No. 7506 of 2024

¶30

bail, there is every chance of tampering the remaining prosecution witnesses and threatening the complainant and his family members and further, there is chance of absconding.

¶31

According to the prosecution, CWs.1 to 3 are the eyewitnesses. They are already examined by the trial Court. It is contended that the said eyewitnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. Be that as it may, this Court while dismissing Criminal Petition in Crl.P.No.5666/2023 has reserved liberty to the petitioner to revive his bail petition if the trial is not concluded within six months. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made available the copy of the order sheet of the trial Court. It reveals that as on today seven witnesses are examined. PWs.5 to 7 were examined on 13.01.2023 and since then there is no progress in the trial and the remaining witnesses are not examined. Accused No.2 is on bail. The petitioner - accused No.1 is in custody since 25.03.2020, for nearly 4 ½ years. Eyewitnesses including

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36810 CRL.P No. 7506 of 2024

¶33

the mother of the deceased are already examined. Hence, tampering those witnesses by the petitioner does not arise.

¶34

In the above facts and circumstances, imposing

¶35

stringent conditions, petitioner can be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(1) The petition is allowed.

¶38

(2) The petitioner - accused No.1 in SC

¶39

No.688/2020 pending on the file of XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayohall, Bengaluru (CCH-20) shall be released on bail subject to following conditions:

¶40

a) He shall execute a personal bond in a

¶41

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)

¶42

with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36810 CRL.P No. 7506 of 2024

¶44

b) He shall furnish proof of his

¶45

residential address and shall inform the Investigation Officer/Court, if there is any change in the address.

¶46

c) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of

¶47

the trial Court without prior permission of the

¶48

learned session Judge.

¶49

d) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶50

e) He shall appear before the trial Court

¶51

on all dates of hearing without fail.

¶52

f) He shall not indulge himself in criminal

¶53

activities.

¶54

SD/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶55

Mr Prayag Prayaga D G v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Prayag Prayaga D G v. State of Karnataka by

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

Sri Anil Kumar v Vs State of Karnataka

Abeed Ron Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadeva Vs Government of Karnataka

Vijay Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shivakumar @ Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

Ranganath Bharadwaj Vs State of Karnataka