Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J.
Nagaraj - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka (Through Rural Police Station Ballari) - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 101090 of 2020
Decided On : 24-09-2020
B. Anwar Basha, Advocate, Seema Shiva Naik, Advocate
The presumption of innocence and the general rule of granting bail, along with the need for stringent conditions to address prosecution concerns, were central legal principles established in the judgment.
Headnote:
Bail - Offence under Section 302 IPC - [ACCUSED] - [CRIMINAL LAW] - [Section 302, Section 304 Part II of IPC] - The court discussed the circumstances of the case, including the marriage dispute and the altercation leading to the death of the deceased. The court considered the absence of eyewitnesses and the reliance on circumstantial evidence. It also referred to the legal principles for granting bail and the presumption of innocence. The court ultimately granted bail to the accused, imposing stringent conditions to address the prosecution's concerns.
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a bail application seeking release in a case registered for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted the deceased with a chopper, resulting in his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and there were no eyewitnesses to the incident. It noted the dispute between the accused and his wife, arranged by the deceased, and the altercation leading to the deceased's death. The court considered the legal principles for granting bail and the presumption of innocence.
Issues: The key issues included the nature and gravity of the charge, the danger of the accused absconding or tampering with witnesses, and the likelihood of the offence being repeated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the general rule of granting bail. It considered the absence of grounds for custodial interrogation and the lack of criminal antecedents for the accused. The court also highlighted the need for stringent conditions to address the prosecution's concerns.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the accused, subject to conditions including execution of a personal bond, non-tampering with prosecution witnesses, and regular appearance before the court.
JUDGMENT
Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.238/2019 of Bellary Rural Police Station (S.C.No.63/2019) registered for an offence punishable under Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC , for brevity).
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, one Honnur Swami had filed complaint that he is residing with his father Kuliyappa, mother Laxmi Devi and younger brothers Ramesh and Manjunath and younger sister Anita. It is further stated that, he has married Vasanta-the daughter of his father s younger sister Laxmidevi. It is further stated that, said Vasanta, the wife of the complainant, has a brother by name Nagaraj. The marriage of Nagaraj had taken place with Usha about 3 years ago and one year ago, there was a quarrel between Nagaraj and Usha and now Usha is residing in her parents house. Nagaraj is doing Hamali work in bus stand. The said Nagaraj was insisting the deceased- Kuliyappa to settle his dispute with his wife Usha on the ground that he has arranged the said marriage. It is further stated that, the said deceased Kuliyappa went to the house of the accused/petitioner Nagaraj. It is further alleged that, the accused Nagaraj insisted the said Kuliyappa to settle his marriage and at that time the said Kuliyappa asked him to improve himself and leave his bad habits and thereafter he will settle his dispute. It is further alleged that, on the date of incident, after dinner, the deceased and the accused Nagaraj were sleeping inside the house in a room and his parents were in another room. It is further alleged that, at about 10.00 p.m. the parents of accused Nagaraj heard the sound inside the house and at that time the accused-Nagaraj, holding chopper, went out of the house and that they went inside, they saw that Kuliyappa had sustained injuries on his neck and he had died on the spot. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.238/2019 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The petitioner came to be arrested on 20.07.2019. The petitioner has filed bail application in S.C.No.63/2019 and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballary, has rejected his bail application by order dated 04.06.2020. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court seeking bail.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent-State.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the deceased is father of the complainant and the petitioner/accused is elder brother of complainant s wife Vasanta. It is his further submission that, there was no intention on the part of the petitioner/accused to kill the deceased but in a heat of anger, has assaulted him with chopper and therefore the same will not attract offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and utmost attracts offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC. It is his further submission that, charge-sheet has been filed and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. With this he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that, C.Ws.10 and 11 are the parents of the petitioner/accused and in their statements recorded by the police and by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. stated that, on hearing the sound they went out of the house wherein deceased and accused were there and at that time accused holding chopper ran away from the house and the dead body of the deceased was lying in the room. It is her further submission that, the accused assaulted deceased as he did not hold panchayat to settle his dispute with his wife. It is her further submission that, the charge-sheet material prima-facie establish the offence against the petitioner/accused. It is her further submission that, the parents of the petitioners are the eyewitnesses in the case and therefore if the
