Muniram Renuka Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

MUNIRAM RENUKA PRASAD S/O MUNIRAM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT. H NO. 6-484, 2^ND FLOOR, DWARAKA NAGAR, RATION SHOP, QUTHBULLAPUR, CHINTAL, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-560054.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI AKSHAY R. HUDDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MANN-EKHELLI PS., TQ. CHITGUPPA, DIST. BIDAR-585227. REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, H.C.K. KALABURAGI.

¶17

(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ASSP AND SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C (OLD), 483 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.5053/2024 OF MANNA EKHELLI POLICE STATION CHITAGUPPA CIRCLE, BIDAR FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 143, 302, 201, 404 R/W 34 OF IPC ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 82/2024 OF MANNA EKHELLI PS WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HUMNABAD DISTRICT BIDAR AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1614 CRL.P No. 200191 of 2025

¶21

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶23

CAV ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶25

The petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.82/2024 of the respondent – Police, is before this Court seeking regular bail, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 302, 201, 404 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) pending before the II Additional Principal District and Sessions Judge, Humnabad in S.C.No.5053/2024.

¶26

Brief facts of the case:

¶27

The case of the complainant is that on 25.05.2024 around 2.00 p.m., the complainant was doing the tent business and his brother-in-law K.Mallikarjuna Rao was doing real estate business. It is further stated that the said K.Mallikarjuna Rao had been to Hyderabad on his personal work in his car bearing No.T.S-O8-FM- 0018.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1614 CRL.P No. 200191 of 2025

¶30

The sister of the complainant had told him that his brother-in-law had been killed near Gade Sai Dabha. After receiving the said information, the complainant, his sister along with the other family members have visited the spot and found that the deceased was murdered. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint against the unknown person. The jurisdictional police have registered a case against the unknown persons. During investigation, the facts of the case have been unfolded in such a way that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were known to the deceased Mallikarjuna Rao. Both stated to have conspired along with other accused with an intention to commit murder of the deceased and took him to the Maharashtra border, Ekhelli on the pretext showing the property and thereafter in the Gade Sai Dabha, they played cards. After playing the cards, they consumed alcohol and had dinner in the said Dabha.

¶31

At that time, the accused have conspired and committed the murder of the deceased. It is alleged that accused No.1 said to have stabbed the deceased with the knife on different parts of the body and committed his murder. As

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1614 CRL.P No. 200191 of 2025

¶33

per the averments of the charge sheet, after committing the murder of the deceased, accused No.1 concealed the knife used for the commission of the said offence in the house of CW.38. The gold ornaments were recovered at the instance of accused No.2, cash of Rs.56,000/- was recovered at the instance of accused No.3 and gold chain worth Rs.60,000/- was recovered at the instance of accused No.6. Therefore, a case came to be registered against all the accused.

¶34

Heard Sri.Akshay R. Huddar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Siddaling P. Patil, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶35

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1. The entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. None of the witnesses have stated about the incident.

¶36

it is further submitted that the charge sheet story has been narrated by the Investigating Officer on the

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1614 CRL.P No. 200191 of 2025

¶38

strength of the voluntary statements of the other accused. Nothing has been recovered at the instance of accused No.1. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

¶39

It is further submitted that the accused No.1 / petitioner is a permanent resident of Chintal, Hyderabad, Telangana and he has to take care of his family members and he will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶40

Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State filed the statement of objections and he submitted that the overt act of the petitioner has been narrated in the charge sheet and the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 has stabbed the deceased with the knife on all over the body. The injuries have been notified by the postmortem report that as many as 21 injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant him bail. Making such submissions, the learned Additional State

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1614 CRL.P No. 200191 of 2025

¶42

Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State prays to dismiss the petition.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, initially, a case came to be registered against unknown persons. The case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The averments of the charge sheet has been drafted on the strength of the voluntary statements of the accused. The knife stated to have been used for the commission of the offence, was not recovered at the instance of the accused. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. Such being the case, it is not appropriate to deny the bail relying on the evidence of the circumstantial witnesses. The apprehension of the prosecution that, the petitioner being a resident of Andhra Pradesh may abscond from the case that can be solved by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

¶44

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶45

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1614 CRL.P No. 200191 of 2025

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶48

ii) The petitioner / accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.82/2024 of the respondent – Police, pending on the file of II Additional Principal District and Sessions Judge, Humnabad, Bidar District in S.C.No.5053/2024 on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two local sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶49

a) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

¶50

b) The petitioner shall not threaten nor tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶51

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶52

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶53

UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 CT:PK

Muniram Renuka Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniram Renuka Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhimashi and Ors. Vs Muttappa

Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Mohd. Allabaksha @ Saifaan Vs the State

Abbu Moulana @ Abubakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Kamalakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashwath Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.