K.NINGESH @ NINGARAJ v. STATE BY JAGALUR POLICE
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is hereby allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 201, 302
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. For the reasons stated the following: ORDER The petition is hereby allowed. The petitioners are enlarged on bail on the following conditions:- i) The petitioners to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees 4 Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent…
Judgment
(BY SRI.H.R.ANITHA, ADV) AND STATE BY JAGALUR POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 (BY SRI.B.RAJA SUBRAMANYA, HCGP) …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT 2 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.21/2012 OF JAGALUR P.S., DAVANAGERE DIST., FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 & 201 READ WITH 34 OF IPC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER One Smt. Susheela lodged a complaint with the respondent-police on 16.02.2012 stating that her daughter Nalinakshi is missing and the same came to be registered in Crime No.21/2012 against unknown person. Subsequently on 11.05.2012 complainant gave another report stating that people in the village are talking that first petitioner had committed murder of her daughter. Based on this second complaint, the police included offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 read with 34 of IPC against the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed.
The bail petition filed by the petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.449/2012 before the Sessions Judge 3 came to be dismissed on 06.09.2012 mainly on the ground that the petitioners may tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
From the material on record it is seen that there is a delay of three months in filing the complaint. There are no eyewitnesses. The circumstantial evidence is the material against the petitioners. Now that the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, there are no circumstances warranting continuance of petitioners in custody. The apprehension in the mind of the prosecution that the petitioners may tamper with the prosecution witnesses is to be protected by putting the petitioners on some terms.
Operative part
For the reasons stated the following: ORDER The petition is hereby allowed. The petitioners are enlarged on bail on the following conditions:- i) The petitioners to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees 4 Fifty Thousand only) each with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ii) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission from it. iii) On all hearing dates, the petitioners shall appear before the trial Court. iv) The petitioners shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Violation of any one of the conditions above will result in cancellation of bail order. Ordered accordingly. DR Sd/- JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is hereby allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 201, 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.