SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Kar) 1206

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.
Santosh @ Sada Mahadev Chandrakodi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 100999 of 2020
Decided On : 09-09-2020

Advocates Appeared:
T. Hanumareddy, Advocate, Seema Shiva Naik, Advocate

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 302 and 201 of IPC - Cr.P.C. 439 - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Fact of the Case:

The accused was seeking bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of The Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, last seen theory, and recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there were valid grounds for granting bail to the accused, considering the nature of the charge, severity of the punishment, and other relevant factors.

Issues: The issues involved in the case included the nature of the charge, the likelihood of the accused absconding, and the potential threat to prosecution witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the principles of bail, including the presumption of innocence, the general rule of granting bail, and the need for imposing stringent conditions to address the prosecution's objections.

Final Decision: The court granted bail to the accused subject to certain terms and conditions, including executing a personal bond, refraining from tampering with prosecution witnesses, and attending the court regularly.

JUDGMENT

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.74/2019 of Chikkodi Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) (now pending on the file of the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi).

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Yalagouda Mahadev Patil has lodged a complaint that his elder brother-Jyothigouda Patil-deceased has separated from them living with his wife and children separately and he was eking his livelihood by driving the tractor and he was addicted to alcohol and was drinking alcohol regularly. It is further alleged that on 14.06.2019 at about 7.00 am, the deceased had gone outside on his motorcycle and he did not come back even on that night. On 15.06.2019, Jyothigouda has called another brother namely Siddagouda and told that he has lost the key of motorcycle and the same has been parked at Government hospital, Chikodi. As such Siddagouda had been to Chikodi and he did not find the deceased at the spot and he took back the motorcycle. As the deceased has not returned to the village, the complainant and others have searched in and around places and they could not get the deceased. It is alleged that on 16.06.2019 at about 8.00 am the complainant and others have come to Chikodi in search of the deceased and on hearing the people that one dead body was lying at Umarani bridge and at about 10.00 am when they have reached Umarani bridge, they found that the dead body was of his brother Jyothigouda and found that unknown persons have committed the murder of his brother for unknown reasons. The said complaint has been registered in Crime No.74/2019 for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against unknown persons. It is alleged that the deceased was found along with the petitioner on the basis of the CC TV footage of Raja Wines, Chikodi and therefore, the petitioner came to be arrested on 05.07.2019 and he was interrogated and alleged to have confessed the commission of offence. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has filed charge sheet. The petitioner/accused filed bail application in Crl.Misc.683/2020 and the same came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deceased went out of the house on 14.06.2019 and his dead body was found on 17.06.2019 and the complaint came to be filed by the brother of the deceased against unknown persons. It is his further submission that on the basis of the voluntary statement of the petitioner/accused, the blood stained clothes of the accused were recovered from the house of the accused after 20 days of the incident. It is his further submission that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is his further submission that the motive for murder is that the deceased had borrowed Rs.2,000/- from the petitioner/accused and it is very weak motive. It is his further submission that the CC TV footage video has been down loaded in the pen drive and it was given to the Investigation Officer by the Raja Wines shop Manager and the said hard disk of the CC TV footage has not been collected and sent for examination. It is his further submission that the petitioner/accused is in judicial custody since 05.07.2019 and he is ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on la

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top