Dismissed¶41

Sri Lokesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2025CRL.P/12742/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail refused under Section 439 Cr.P.C.; murder trial S.C.No.118/2024; offences IPC Sections 302, 114 r/w 34; Crime No.8/2024 Oorgaum Police Station; informant Geetha (mother of deceased); accused in judicial custody since 17.02.2024; CW2 eyewitness; strong prima facie materials; earlier bail order dated 14.10.2024 by III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolar at KGF; petition dismissed by Justice M G Uma, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, 20.01.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:2128.

What did the court decide?

The point is answered in the negative: the petitioner-accused No.1 is not entitled to be released on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., since the offence is punishable either with death or imprisonment for life, CW2 is the eyewitness to the incident, and there are strong prima facie materials against him. ¶38

Sri Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:2128 CRL.P No. 12742 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12742 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. LOKESH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O MOHAN RAJ, R/AT. NO.94, NORTH TANK BLOCK, CORAMANDAL POST KGF, PINCODE - 563 118

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. UDHAYA KUMAR .G., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PSI OORGAUM P.S., K.G.F. REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

SMT. GEETHA

¶16

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. #413, SANJEEYA GANDHI, TOWN, RABORTONPETE, K.G.F. - 563 113.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

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

¶19

R2 - SERVED)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2024 MADE IN BAIL APPLICATION FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. IN S.C.NO.118/2024 PASSED BY THE IIIRD ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2128 CRL.P No. 12742 of 2024

¶22

KOLAR, SITTING AT KGF AND ALLOW THE BAIL APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER BY GRANTING REGULAR BAIL IN S.C.NO.118/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IIIRD ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR SITTING AT KGF FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 AND 114 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.8/2024 of Oorgaum Police Station, pending in S.C.No.118/2024, on the file of the learned III Additional District Session Judge, Kolar, sitting at K.G.F, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 114 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Geetha.

¶27

Heard Sri. Udhaya Kumar G, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:2128 CRL.P No. 12742 of 2024

¶30

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

R E A S O N S

¶35

The petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking grant

¶36

of bail. He was apprehended on 17.02.2024 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The mother of the deceased filed the first information against accused Nos. 1 and 2 making specific allegations. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. According to the prosecution, CW2 is the friend of the deceased and she was accompanied by the deceased at the time of incident and she is the eyewitness. It is also the contention of the prosecution that the bloodstained chopper used in commission of the offence and the bloodstained clothes worn by the accused were recovered at his instance. As per PM

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2128 CRL.P No. 12742 of 2024

¶38

report, the deceased had sustained as many as 16 injuries, most of them are incised wounds. As per the medical officer who conducted PM examination, the death was due to injury caused to vital organs. There are strong prima facie materials against the petitioner for having committed the offence. Since the offence is punishable either with death or imprisonment for life and CW2 is the eyewitness to the incident, it is not advisable to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶39