(BY SRI. TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA., ADVOCATE) v. (BY SRI.RAHUL RAI K., HCGP)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 37, 114, 201, 202, 302
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.68/2022 of Huliyar Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a…
Judgment
(BY SRI. TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE HULIYAR POLICE STATION, HULIYAR, TALUKA TIPTUR DISTRICT TUMKUR REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560001 (BY SRI.RAHUL RAI K., HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.68/2022 REGISTERED BY HULIYAR POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201, 202 AND 114 R/W 37 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT IN S.C.NO.10037/2022. SESSIONS JUDGE, TIPTUR AND Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21292 CRL.P No. 4206 of 2024 THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.68/2022 of Huliyar Police Station, pending in S.C.No.10037/2022 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiptur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, 114 read with Section 37 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Chandranaik.
Heard Sri. Tigadi Veeranna Gadigeppa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.
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.?” - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21292 CRL.P No. 4206 of 2024 My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S Petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 11.04.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. Investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The prosecution is relying on circumstantial evidence that the deceased was last seen in the company of the petitioner, he has made extra judicial confession over phone and that there was recovery of mobile and towel used in the commission of the offence. As per the primary opinion of the doctor, the death was due to combined effect of head injury and strangulation. Till today, final opinion is not yet received. Moreover, it is stated that charges were framed before the Court 09.02.2023. Till date, the trial is not yet commenced as the properties which are seized are not yet produced before the trial. Prosecution has cited as many as 44 witnesses and their examination may - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21292 CRL.P No. 4206 of 2024 take years together. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement to his right to life and liberty. It is stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 are already enlarged on bail. 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 apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
Operative part
Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.68/2022 of Huliyar Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall not commit similar offences. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:21292 CRL.P No. 4206 of 2024 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 Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail. SD/- JUDGE TL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 37, 114, 201, 202, 302.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.