Shashikumar @ Shashi Vs State through — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

Shashikumar @ Shashi Vs State through — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.116/2024 of Sanjay Nagar Police Station, pending in S.C.No.1234/2024 on the file of the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-46), on a bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, subject to conditions: (a) not to commit similar offences; (b) not to threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses; (c) to appear before the Court as and when required; Investigating Officer to verify address and documents of petitioner and sureties within 5 days, failing which prosecution may seek cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?

Court's answer

There are admittedly no eye-witnesses to the incident; the prosecution case rests on alleged motive and circumstantial evidence, namely that the mobile handset of the deceased was found in the accused's car, that CW-1 called the deceased on 01.06.2024 shortly before the incident and was told she was with the accused, and that the handsets of the deceased and the accused were in the same tower location immediately preceding the incident and were switched off at the same place at the same time.

Ratio / Principle

The prosecution does not contend that the petitioner has criminal antecedents or that he is required for further investigation; therefore, his continued detention in custody would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty.

Key takeaways

Answering the framed point in the affirmative, the Court held the petitioner entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions that would take care of the interest of the prosecution.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. granted to sole accused charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC (Crime No.116/2024, Sanjay Nagar Police Station; S.C.No.1234/2024, XLV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-46)). Accused in custody since 18.06.2024; charge sheet filed citing 48 witnesses. Court noted there are admittedly no eye-witnesses; the prosecution case rests on alleged motive (deceased allegedly daughter of the father's first wife, accused son of the second wife) and circumstantial evidence: the deceased's mobile handset found in the accused's car, her last call to CW-1 (her husband/informant) on 01.06.2024 stating she was with the accused, and both handsets being in the same tower location immediately before being switched off together. With no criminal antecedents attributed and no further investigation requiring custody, continued detention was held to infringe the petitioner's right to life and liberty. Bail allowed on bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, subject to conditions (no similar offences, no threatening/tampering with witnesses, appearance as required); violation entitles prosecution to seek cancellation before the Trial Court.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:2127 CRL.P No. 12734 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12734 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

SHASHIKUMAR @ SHASHI, S/O RAMANNA C, AGED ABOUT 35 YRS, RESIDING AT SEEKAAYANAHALLI, VISHWANATHAPURA POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 1102.

(BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA .S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

…PETITIONER

STATE THROUGH SANJAYANAGARA POLICE STATION REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 001

SRI. SURESH, S/O LATE T.H. SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O DODDATUMAKURU VILLAGE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1

SRI. M.R. NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.8471/2024 AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL INS.C.NO.5074/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:2127 CRL.P No. 12734 of 2024

AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN CR.NO.116/2024 OF SANJAYANAGARA P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201 OF IPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner-sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.116/2024 of Sanjay Nagar Police Station, pending in S.C.No.1234/2024, on the file of the learned XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-46), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Suresh.

Heard Sri. Shankrappa S, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Sri. M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2127 CRL.P No. 12734 of 2024

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

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

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

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

R E A S O N S

The petitioner being the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 18.06.2024 and since then, he is in judicial custody. CW1 being the husband of the deceased lodged the first information against the accused, alleging commission of the offence as stated above. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. The Investigating Officer has cited as many as 48 witnesses. Admittedly, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. The prosecution alleges that there was motive to the accused to cause the death of the deceased as she was the daughter from the first wife of his father, whereas the accused is the son from

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:2127 CRL.P No. 12734 of 2024

the second wife. The prosecution relies on the circumstantial evidence that the mobile handset belonging to the deceased was found in the car of the accused and it is also the contention of the prosecution that, CW-1 had called the deceased on 01.06.2024 just before the time of incident and the deceased had informed him that she is with the accused. It is also stated that the mobile handset of the deceased and the accused were found in the same tower location immediately preceding the incident and they were found switched off in the same place at the same time. These are the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is either having criminal antecedents or that he is required for further investigation. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement to his right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

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

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:2127 CRL.P No. 12734 of 2024

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.116/2024 of Sanjay Nagar Police Station, pending in S.C.No.1234/2024, on the file of the learned XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-46), 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:

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

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

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

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

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, 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 petitioner 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

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:2127 CRL.P No. 12734 of 2024

Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

SPV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9