Allowed

Vinay @ Vini v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024CRL.P/904/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two successive criminal petitions filed for enlargement on bail in connection with a murder case. The Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioners subject to conditions, noting that prosecution eyewitnesses had turned hostile while recovery witnesses were yet to be examined.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 each, two sureties, prohibition of tampering witnesses, and restriction on leaving jurisdiction.

Vinay @ Vini Vs the State of Karnataka by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10250 CRL.P No. 904 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2076 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.904 OF 2024 C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2076 OF 2024

¶9

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 904 OF 2024:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

VINAY @ VINI, S/O SADANANDA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.18, 10^TH CROSS, SHIVAPURA, NELAGANDARANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560073. NATIVE OF CHANNAMANAGERE VILLAGE, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI NAVEEN KUMAR @ NAVEEN, S/O SHIVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.189, KUMAR BUILDING, 5^TH CROSS, 7^TH MAIN, RUKMINI NAGAR, NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU-560073. NATIVE OF VANAKERE VILLAGE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶14

SRI NAGARAJU V, S/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT 62/2, NANJAPPA BUILDING, NEAR SHARADA SIDDAGANGAIAH, KALYANA MANTAPA,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:10250 CRL.P No. 904 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2076 of 2024

¶17

INDIRANAGAR CIRLCE, BENGALURU-560073

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PEENYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU 5600058. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI DIWAKAR K. MADDUR, HCGP)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.PC TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.381/2022 (CR.NO.341/2021) OF RESPONDENT PEENYA P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 114, 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 201, 120B R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 25(1)(B)(b) AND 27 OF ARMS ACT ON THE FILE OF THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.

¶25

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2076 OF 2024:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

1 . SRI UMESH @ MIKA, S/O THAMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.521, SAVITHRAMMA BUILDING, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, SHIVAPURA, NELAGADARANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560073.

¶28

PERMANENTLY R/AT MALLEKOPPALU VILLAGE, DEVALAPURA POST, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571432.

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:10250 CRL.P No. 904 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2076 of 2024

¶30

¶31

2 . SRI. GIRISHA, S/O LATE MARISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.18, 7^TH CROSS, SHIVAPURA MAIN ROAD, BEHIND NTTF, PEENYA, BANGALORE-560058.

¶32

PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT ANKANAHALLI VILLAGE, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159.

¶33

3 . SRI. NAGESH S/O LATE RAGHUNATH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.179, 15^TH CROSS, SHIVAPURA, NELAGADARANAHALLI, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE-560073

¶34

4 . SRI. CHANDAN @ CHANDU S/O DIVAKAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, RAMLINGAPPA BUILDING, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, AMARAVATHI LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560073

¶35

PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT GOWDAKERE VILLAGE, J.C.PURA HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572214.

¶36

…PETITIONERS

¶37

(BY SRI PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PEENYA POLICE STATION,

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:10250 CRL.P No. 904 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2076 of 2024

¶42

REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶43

…RESPONDENT

¶44

(BY SRI. DIWAKAR K. MADDUR, HCGP)

¶45

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.381/2022 (CR.NO.341/2021) OF RESPONDENT PEENYA P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 114, 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 201, 120B R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 25(1)(B)(b) AND 27 OF ARMS ACT ON THE FILE OF THE LXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.

¶46

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

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶49

This is a successive bail petition and earlier accused

¶50

Nos.10 and 11 had approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.4110/2022 and this Court having considered the material on record came to the conclusion that these petitioners are master mind and C.W.4 to C.W.10 are the eye-witnesses

¶51

and there is a direct evidence against the petitioners and also these petitioners have purchased the machete from C.W.24. The post mortem report confirms that the deceased had

¶52

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10250 CRL.P No. 904 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2076 of 2024

¶53

sustained 25 multiple injuries and cause of death is also on account of shock and multiple injuries sustained and having found the prima facie material, dismissed the same.

¶54

These petitioners had earlier approached this Court in Crl.P.Nos.11038/2023 and 11061/2023 and this Court had given liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court after the examination of C.W.5 to 10, who are the eye-witnesses. Now, the witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court and particularly, the complainant is examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is the relative of the deceased. P.Ws.3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 are the eyewitnesses. P.W.9 is the father of the deceased. All these witnesses have turned hostile and hence the learned counsel submits that nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses and hence the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶55

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that though the eye-witnesses have been examined before the Court, the recovery witnesses have not been examined. There is recovery at the instance of accused No.5 i.e., chopper. C.W.24 has not been examined and C.W.24 is the person who sold the chopper to the accused persons. The learned counsel submits that there

¶56

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10250 CRL.P No. 904 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2076 of 2024

¶57

is recovery of chopper from accused Nos.1 to 4 also, apart from accused No.5 and these witnesses have to be examined.

¶58

Having considered the factual aspects of the case

¶59

and this Court had earlier given liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court after examination of C.W.5 to 10. This Court earlier while considering the bail petition of accused Nos.10 and 11 had taken note of that C.W.4 to 10 are eyewitnesses and those eye-witnesses have been examined and turned hostile. Even the sister of the deceased is examined as P.W.1 and sister-in-law has been examined as P.W.2 and father of the deceased is examined as P.W.9 and all of them have turned hostile. Only the recovery witnesses have to be examined and these petitioners are in custody from 27.10.2021 and in view of the relative witnesses and also the eye-witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on bail on certain conditions.

¶60

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶61

following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

The petitions are allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with S.C.No.381/2022

¶64

¶65

NC: 2024:KHC:10250 CRL.P No. 904 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 2076 of 2024

¶66

(Crime No.341/2021) of Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 114, 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 201, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 25(1)(B)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶67

(i) The petitioners shall execute their personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each, with two sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶68

(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶69

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶70

(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against them is disposed of.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

Vinay @ Vini v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay @ Vini 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

Smt. Nalini. R. Shetty Vs Smt. C. Padma

Smt. Khaja Bee Vs Union of India

M.K. Eswarachari Vs K. Vishvesha

Sri. Mubarak @ Syed Sate Vs the State of Karnataka

Sushma K Vs State of Karnataka

Sabiha Banu Vs P Chandra Reddy