Dismissed

Mr Narayanaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024CRL.P/9214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed by accused seeking bail under Sections 201, 302, 120B IPC. The High Court held that since the trial is nearly concluded and evidence is inconclusive for a finding, granting bail would hamper prosecution. Petition dismissed; trial speeded up.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to speed up trial following Section 309 CrPC.

Mr Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:41850 CRL.P No. 9214 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9214 OF 2024 (439(Cr.PC) /

¶6

483(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. NARAYANASWAMY SON OF LATE BALANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT MELAPUR COLONY, INDUPUR TALUK, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-515201.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJANNA B.C., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY - 560078 REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶13

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP.)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN CR.NO.216/2021, S.C.NO.1497/2021 OF KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 201, 302, 120B R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXV

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:41850 CRL.P No. 9214 of 2024

¶18

ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-66) IN THE ABOVE CASE.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS' for short) seeking grant of bail in crime No.216/2021 registered by Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302, 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶23

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

¶24

Brief facts leading to the case of prosecution is that the complainant has lodged the complaint alleging

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41850 CRL.P No. 9214 of 2024

¶26

that on 20.08.2021 afternoon around 3.30 p.m., one Shobha, tenant under Premalatha called over phone to the complainant's mother-in-law Asha and informed that somebody have murdered Premalatha and Shantharaju. Immediately, the complainant, her sister-Reena and Latha

¶27

went inside the house and noticed that somebody have murdered Shantharaju in his bed room and Premalatha

¶28

near Bathroom and they were in the pool of blood. Premalatha and Shantharaju were leading their lives from the rent amount. The complainant came to know that some unknown persons were murdered them with sharp weapons between 1.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m., and escaped from the spot. During investigation, the police apprehended the accused persons and on the basis of confession statement, there is recovery of gold ornaments and they are remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner approached the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru seeking grant of bail and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.06.2024.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41850 CRL.P No. 9214 of 2024

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶31

that the petitioner is in judicial custody more than three

¶32

years. The Trial Court is not properly conducting the proceedings on day today basis as the witnesses are not appearing before the Court and hence, there is a delay in conducting the Trial and the petitioner is under judicial pre-trial conviction. It is submitted that the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses till date and all are supported the case of the prosecution and in their evidence there is lot of contradictions and omissions. PW.4 - Asha who is

¶33

the sister of the deceased Premalatha has clearly deposed in the cross-examination and admitted that there was ill will between her sister's family side and Shantahkumar family side and also Harshitha who is the adopted daughter of the deceased family. Therefore, there is likelihood of committing murder of the deceased husband and wife by their own family members and not by the petitioner. As such, he prayed for allowing this petition.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:41850 CRL.P No. 9214 of 2024

¶36

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader strongly opposes the bail petition and justified the order passed by the Trial Court.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and on perusal of the material on record, the First Information Report came to be registered against unknown persons by the complainant alleging that somebody have murdered Shantharaju in his bed room and Premalatha near Bathroom and they were in the pool of blood. The post mortem reports reveals that the death of the deceased husband is due to 'Shock and Haemorrhage' as result of multiple injuries sustained over neck region and the death of wife is due to Asphyxia as a result of combined effect of ligature strangulation and smothering. The petitioner was arrested on 23.08.2021 and is in custody. On the basis of confession statement

¶38

there was recovery of mangalaya chain, ear stud, silver toe rings and other golden ornaments of the deceased

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41850 CRL.P No. 9214 of 2024

¶40

and also the receipt for having pledged some of the golden ornaments which are taken away by the petitioner from the house of the deceased persons. The alleged incident is based on circumstantial evidence. The trial is under progress. A copy of the order sheet is placed on record wherein it is seen that almost 17 witnesses were examined by the Trial Court and the cross examination of PW.17 was deferred due to the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused. Further, it is stated that non bailable warrants were issued to PW.15 and PWs.31 to 33

¶41

and also bailable warrant for Rs.15,000/- each to Cws.29 and 30. There are 33 witnesses and almost all the witnesses were examined except three witnesses.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed

¶43

on record the entire depositions of all the witnesses who are all examined before the Trial Court and they have supported the case of prosecution except PW.4 in her cross examination deposed and clearly admitted that there is ill will between her family side and Shantahkumar family

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:41850 CRL.P No. 9214 of 2024

¶45

side and also Harshitha who is the adopted daughter of the deceased family. When the trial is still under progress, this Court cannot give any finding only on the basis of evidence adduced by prosecution or admission made by the witnesses in their cross examination that were produced by the accused as well as by the prosecution. The matter is at the fag end of the trial before the Trial Court and only few witnesses are yet to be examined. When such being the scenario, it is not feasible to give finding based on the evidence of contradictions in the trial. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has deeply gone to the root of this case and gave finding on merits of the case and dismissed the bail petition vide order dated 21.03.2023 in Criminal Petition No.10586/2022. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that granting bail to the petitioner at this stage would amounts to hampering of the prosecution witnesses; he may try to avoid further trial and also try to escape from the clutches of law. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:41850 CRL.P No. 9214 of 2024

¶48

8. Accordingly, the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

a. The successive bail petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed .

¶51

b. The Trial Court is directed to speed up the trial without giving any further adjournment by following the procedures as laid down under Section 309 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶52

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶53

SSD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Mr Narayanaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Narayanaswamy v. the 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

Kum Prakruthi J Vs Smt Lakshmi Devi

Purushottham Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdul Razak Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narahari @ Benaka Vs State of Karnataka

Imran @ Twist Imran Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Prime Label Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Kantilal Pukhraj Jain