Allowed

Madhu Alias Madhusudhan v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024CRL.P/8989/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition for accused Nos. 2 and 4 in a murder case. Despite specific allegations of stabbing, non-fatal injuries and lack of criminal antecedents justified bail subject to monetary bond and standard conditions to ensure trial attendance and witness protection.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of petitioners on bail on obtaining a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions of non-interference with witnesses and appearance.

Madhu Alias Madhusudhan Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38875 CRL.P No. 8989 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8989 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MADHU ALIAS MADHUSUDHAN S/O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT #525, 6^TH CROSS, ASHRAYA YOJANE HOUSES, KEMPU BOMMASANDRA ROAD, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DIST - 562 106.

¶9

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶10

SHEKAR ALIAS SHEKAR KUMAR S/O R. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, SWAMY VIVEKANANDA BADAVANE, NEAR SOWBHAGYA CHATHRA, WARD NO.23, ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU DIST - 562 106. (ADDRESS IS MENTIONED AS PER CHARGE SHEET) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANEKAL P.S., BENGALURU, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.61/2024 OF ANEKAL P.S. BENGALURU DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR THE

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:38875 CRL.P No. 8989 of 2024

¶16

OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 504, 323, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.2816/2024 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT ANEKAL BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶17

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioners-accused No.2 and 4 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.61/2024 of Anekal Police Station, pending in CC No.2816/2024 on the file of the learned Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC., Anekal Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 323 and 506 R/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Syed Ghous.

¶21

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

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38875 CRL.P No. 8989 of 2024

¶23

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

R E A S O N S

¶28

Petitioners being accused Nos.2 and 4 are seeking grant of bail. They were apprehended on 29.02.2024 and 06.03.2024 respectively and since then they are in judicial custody.

¶29

One of the friends of the deceased lodged the first information against accused Nos.1 to 4 for having committed the offence as stated above. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. As per the charge sheet, CW1 is the injured, CWs.2 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the incident.

¶30

As per the case made out by the prosecution, Crime No.53/2023 of Anekal Police Station was registered against the

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38875 CRL.P No. 8989 of 2024

¶32

deceased and his son. The deceased went to the house of accused No.1 and insisted him to see that the case is withdrawn. Accused No.1 was not agreeable for the same. During altercation, the deceased tried to assault accused No.1. Immediately, accused No.1 called accused No.3. Within no time, accused Nos.3 to 7 came to the spot. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 again gathered at night and threatened the informant, deceased and the witnesses who were present at the spot. In the meantime, the deceased tried to assault accused Nos.1 and 5 with machetes, however, they escaped.

¶33

It is the specific contention of the prosecution that accused No.2 snatched the knife from the hand of accused No.5 and stabbed on the stomach, while accused No.4 stabbed the deceased on his back with a knife. Injury Nos.2 and 3 mentioned in the post mortem report are the corresponding injuries on the stomach and back of the deceased.

¶34

As per the post mortem report, the deceased had sustained as many as 13 injuries and as per the provisional opinion, the death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of injury sustained to chest due to sharp force. The said

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:38875 CRL.P No. 8989 of 2024

¶37

fatal injury is described as injury No.1 in the Post mortem report. As per the charge sheet, accused No.3 is the author of the said injury on the chest.

¶38

It is stated that accused Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7 are already enlarged on bail. Considering the individual overt acts alleged in the post mortem report, co-accused were enlarged on bail. Even though there is specific allegations that these petitioners being accused Nos.2 and 4 have stabbed deceased on stomach and back respectively, those injuries described at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 in the post mortem report were not fatal. Moreover, even according to the prosecution, it was the deceased who picked up quarrel with accused No.1 and tried to assault him and other accused with machete. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioners are required to be detained in custody for any reason except to ensure their presence before the Trial Court. They are not having any criminal antecedents. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38875 CRL.P No. 8989 of 2024

¶40

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶41

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The petition is allowed.

¶44

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.61/2024 of Anekal Police Station, pending in CC No.2816/2024 on the file of the learned Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC., Anekal Bengaluru, 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:

¶45

a). The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

If in case, the petitioners violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38875 CRL.P No. 8989 of 2024

¶50

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioners 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 petitioners on bail.

¶51

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶52

BH List No.: 3 Sl No.: 11

Madhu Alias Madhusudhan v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Alias Madhusudhan v. the 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

Mr K Murali Vs Mr Nageshwara Rao M

R P Ravishankar Vs M v Shankar

The State of Karnataka Vs Naveen Krishna

Manukumar B v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ismyal @ Mohammad Ismayil Vs State by Karnataka

Sri Raghavendra C M Vs the State of Karnataka