Criminal Petition No. 13519 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1889 CRL.P No. 13519 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13519 OF 2024 …PETITIONER BETWEEN: DEEPAK CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O SRI CHANNAPPA, NO. 335, HASANMUKHI, CANARA BANK LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560 097. (BY SRI KANTHARAJAPPA M G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Legal Reasoning
BY CHIKKAJALA P.S AND NOW CID POLICE, REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. BALAKRISHNA PAI, S/O LATE G. SANJEEV PAI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: CANARA BANK EMPLOYEE R/AT NO.15, 14TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, BASAVESHWARAHAGARA LAYOUT, NAGASHETTYHALLI, SANJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 094. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI M.R.BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1889 CRL.P No. 13519 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT CRIME NO.22/2013 REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.1651/2024 REGISTERED BY THE CHIKKAJALA POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201, 376(D) R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN S.C.NO.225/2024 AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.22/2013 of Chikkajala Police Station, pending in C.C.No.1651/2024 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 and 376(d) R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Balakrishna Pai. 2. Heard Sri Kantharajappa M.G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1889 CRL.P No. 13519 of 2024 Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record. 3. 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.?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 4. Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. It is stated that the deceased was found missing on 12.02.2013. Immediately, missing complaint came to be filed by respondent No.2. Later, the dead body of the deceased was found and the same was identified by respondent No.2. An UDR was registered. Subsequently, the FIR in Cr.No.22/2013 came to be registered as it was stated that the gold jewelry worn by the deceased was found missing and it was suspected that she was subjected to rape and murder. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1889 CRL.P No. 13519 of 2024 5. It is pertinent to note that initially ‘C’ report came to be filed. Further investigation was undertaken, respondent No.2 was apprehended and subsequently, CID took over the investigation and accused Nos.2 and 3 were apprehended. 6. As per the post mortem report, dead body was decomposed, disfigured, discolored, distended and foul smelling with maggots seen crawling here and there all over the body. Skin found pealed off and as per the final opinion, death was due to respiratory failure consequent to pressure over the neck-homicidal in nature. 7. The apprehension of the petitioner was about 11 years after the incident. In the meantime, different agencies conducted investigation and ‘C’ reports came to be filed. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution has relied on circumstantial evidence i.e., statements of last seen witnesses, blood stains found in car belonging to accused No.1 at the time of incident and the brain mapping report of accused No.2. With these materials on record, prosecution required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1889 CRL.P No. 13519 of 2024 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 made candid submission that petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence. He is fixed by CID without any basis. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that accused No.1 is already enlarged on bail as per order dated 03.09.2024 passed in CRL.P.No.7890/2024. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation. Even though serious allegations are made against the petitioner, I am of the opinion that he is entitled for bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution. 9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.22/2013 of Chikkajala Police Station, pending in C.C.No.1651/2024 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, Bengaluru, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1889 CRL.P No. 13519 of 2024 a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences. 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/- (M G UMA) JUDGE AV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4