Allowed

Vijay @ Vijay Bhaskar @ Tyatu Viji v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC18 Sept 2024CRL.P/9180/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought by accused Nos.1 and 5 in a murder case arising from a fatal group assault at Anekal. The court noted the petitioners were not the authors of the fatal injuries, had no criminal antecedents, and similar-situated co-accused had been granted bail, and enlarged them on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail in Crime No.61/2024 on bond of Rs.2,00,000 each with two sureties each, subject to conditions.

Vijay @ Vijay Bhaskar @ Tyatu Viji Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38352 CRL.P No. 9180 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9180 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VIJAY @ VIJAY BHASKAR @ TYATU VIJI S/O SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT #5/189, 7^TH CROSS WEAVERS COLONY, 5^TH WARD ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106

¶9

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka

¶10

SHASHI @ SHASHI KUMAR D.N. S/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.526, 6^TH CROSS ASHRAYA YOJANE HOUSE KEMPUDOMMASANDRA ROAD KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANEKAL P .S, BENGALURU REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.61/2024 OF ANEKAL POLICE

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38352 CRL.P No. 9180 of 2024

¶19

STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 504, 323 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, NOW REGISTERED AS C.C. NO.2816/2024 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE PL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, COURT ANEKAL BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, THAT FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 5 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.61 of 2024 of Anekal Police Station, pending in CC No.2816 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal Court, Bengaluru Rural District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Syed Ghous.

¶24

Heard Sri M R Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K Nageshwarappa, learned High Court

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38352 CRL.P No. 9180 of 2024

¶26

Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

R E A S O N S

¶31

The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 5 are seeking grant of bail. They were apprehended on 27.02.2024 and since then they are in judicial custody. One of the injured lodged the first information against accused Nos.1 to 4 and others for having committed the offences as stated above. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 323 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. As per column No.17 of the charge

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38352 CRL.P No. 9180 of 2024

¶33

sheet, it was the deceased who picked up quarrel with accused No.1 and compelled him to withdraw the case that he had instituted and tried to assault him. Thereafter, accused No.1 called the other accused who are his friends, to the spot. The deceased along with CWs.1 to 5 came with weapon and criminally intimidated the accused. The accused have also came with dragger and knife and challenged the deceased and other witnesses.

¶34

The specific allegations made against the accused is that when the deceased tried to assault accused Nos.1 and 5 with machete, they have escaped the blow and in turn accused No.3 stabbed the deceased with dragger on his chest, accused No.4 stabbed with knife on his back and in the meantime, accused No.2 snatched the knife from hands of accused No.5 and stabbed the deceased on his stomach, as a result of which, he fell down and later died. The allegations made against accused No.5 is that he assaulted on the face of CW3 and accused Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7 have kicked the deceased when he fell down after sustaining fatal injuries.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38352 CRL.P No. 9180 of 2024

¶36

6. My attention was drawn to the order dated

¶37

10.07.2024 passed in Criminal Petition No.6322 of 2024, wherein, the bail was granted in favour of accused Nos.6 and 7 against whom similar allegations are made. The charge sheet came to be filed on the basis of first information and the statements of the injured eye witnesses i.e., CWs.1 to 4. Even if the averments made in the charge sheet is to be accepted, these petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 5 are not the authors of the fatal injuries caused to the deceased. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioners are required to be detained in custody, 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.

¶38

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is allowed.

¶41

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38352 CRL.P No. 9180 of 2024

¶42

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.61 of 2024 of Anekal Police Station, pending in CC No.2816 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal Court, Bengaluru Rural District, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶43

a). The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:38352 CRL.P No. 9180 of 2024

¶50

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

*bgn/CT:VS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 8

Vijay @ Vijay Bhaskar @ Tyatu Viji v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay @ Vijay Bhaskar @ Tyatu Viji 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

B Prakash Bhat Vs State by Bommanahalli Police Station

Sri Gunavenkataramane Gowda Vs Sri N S Vijaykumar

Sri. Akshay Singh Chauhan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. M.A. Raghavendra Vs Sri. K.S. Babu

Shivakumar D B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ganesh Vs State of Karnataka