Sri.Mutturaju Vs State of Karnataka

SRI.MUTTURAJU S/O LATE CHIKKAGULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT JANATHA COLONY, CHIKKAHAGADE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 562 106.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI MUNIRAJU K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER SURYANAGARA POLICE STATION BENGALURU-562 106

¶14

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT.RADHAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT C/O SOMASHEKHAR REDDY, RAMAIAH LAYOUT, CHANDAPURA VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 106.

¶16

AND ALSO R/AT BADUVANAHALLI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI RANGASWAMY.R, HCGP)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:27875 CRL.P No. 7145 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.5055/2022 IN CRIME NO.328 OF 2021, REGISTERED BY SURYANAGAR POLICE (RESPONDENT NO.1) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT SITTING AT ANEKAL.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Accused in S.C.No.5055/2022 pending before the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Sitting at Anekal, arising out of Crime No.328/2021 registered by Suryanagar Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District, for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.), seeking regular bail.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:27875 CRL.P No. 7145 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

FIR in Crime No.328/2021 was registered by

¶31

Suryanagar Police Station, Bengaluru District for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against the petitioner herein based on the first information dated 11.12.2021 received from Radhamma, who is the mother of deceased-Kavya. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 13.12.2021 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against him for the aforesaid offence. His bail application filed before the trial Court in S.C. No.5055/2022 was rejected on 05.03.2025. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

In the charge sheet it is alleged that the petitioner was quarreling with his wife-Kavya for the reason that she had an illicit relationship with Narayanaswamy @ Dasa, who is the other deceased in the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:27875 CRL.P No. 7145 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

present case. On the alleged date of incident, the petitioner came to know that his wife-Kavya and Narayanaswamy @ Dasa were together in the house of CW.1 and therefore at about 7.00 p.m., on 11.12.2021, the petitioner who came to the house of CW.1 allegedly assaulted his wife-Kavya and Narayanaswamy with a dragger and committed their murder. CWs.2 to 5 are the alleged eye witnesses to the incident in question. Out of the 45 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case till date, 14 charge sheet witnesses have been examined by the prosecution as PWs.1 to 14. CWs.2, 3 and 5, who are the alleged eye witnesses have been examined before the trial Court as PWs.1, 5 and 2 respectively. According to learned counsel for the petitioner all the aforesaid eye witnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution and the submission is not seriously disputed by learned HCGP.

¶36

The prosecution has failed to examine CW.4, who is the other eye witness in the present case and

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:27875 CRL.P No. 7145 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

inspite of Trial Court taking coercive steps against CW.4, the prosecution could not secure presence of CW.4 in the present case. Except CW.4, all other material charge sheet witnesses have been already examined in the present case. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than three years eight months and out of the 45 charge sheet witnesses, only 14 charge sheet witnesses are examined as on this date. Therefore, the chances of the trial being completed and the case being disposed of on merits in the near soon is remote. Since all material charge sheet witnesses are already examined before the trial Court there cannot be any apprehension that petitioner may tamper with the material prosecution witnesses.

¶40

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 at paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:27875 CRL.P No. 7145 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

"19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime".

¶44

Under the circumstances, I am of the view that,

¶45

without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, solely on the ground of petitioner's incarceration, his prayer for grant of bail needs to be answered affirmatively.

¶46

Accordingly, the following;

¶47

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶48

(ii) The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail

¶49

in Crime No.328/2021 registered by Suryanagar Police Station, Bengaluru District, for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶50

(a) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:27875 CRL.P No. 7145 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶54

(b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶55

(c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶56

(d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶57

(e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶58

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶59

VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Sri.Mutturaju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Mutturaju 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devaraj, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Tirumala Devarapalli Gangadara @ Gangadhar T Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Prasanna Kumar Vs State by

Santhosh Vs State of Karnataka

Chinna G R Vs the State Reprsented

Gopal P M @ Gopi Vs the State of Karnataka