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

2024 Supreme(Kar) 222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anil B.Katti, J.
Mahantesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 100556 of 2024 (439)
Decided On : 11-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
Anilkumar H.Budarpur, Advocate, Girija S.Hiremath, Advocate

The court established that the seriousness of the charges and the evidence of intent to cause harm are critical factors in determining bail eligibility under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Headnote:

BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 439 - The court analyzed the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the grant of bail, emphasizing that the mere filing of a charge sheet and the accused being in custody are not sufficient grounds for bail. The court highlighted the serious nature of the allegations, including murder and assault, and the evidence presented, which included eyewitness accounts and a postmortem report indicating multiple injuries. The court concluded that the accused's actions demonstrated intent to cause harm, thus denying bail.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with a murder case (Crime No. 98/2022) involving the accused's step-sister, Sunanda, who was allegedly assaulted with a sickle, resulting in her death. The case arose from a property dispute and allegations of an illicit relationship between the accused and the deceased.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence, including eyewitness statements and the postmortem report, supported the prosecution's case. The court noted inconsistencies in the complainant's statements but determined that they did not undermine the credibility of the eyewitnesses or the severity of the charges against the accused.

Issues: 1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.? 2) What order should be made regarding the bail application?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of the allegations, the evidence of intent to kill, and the serious injuries sustained by the deceased outweighed the arguments for bail. The court emphasized that the accused's continued custody was justified given the gravity of the charges.

Final Decision: The petition for bail filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner/ accused filed the present petition U/s 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in connection with the case registered in Kundagol P.S. Crime No. 98/2022.

2. Parties to the petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

3. Heard the arguments of both sides.

4. After hearing arguments of both sides and on perusal of the records, the following points arise for consideration.

    i) Whether petitioner /accused is entitled for grant of bail in terms of Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C.?

ii) What order?

5. On the strength of the complaint filed by Mahantesh son of Dilleppa Havanur criminal law was set into motion by registering the case in Kundagol P.S. Crime No. 98/2022 for the offences punishable U/s 302, 354A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The investigating officer after conducting investigation has filed the charge sheet. The accused is in judicial custody from the date of his arrest on 19/8/2023.

6. The complaint allegations would go to show that his step- sister Sunanda was given in marriage with Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai and out of wedlock they have two children by name Niranjan, 17 years and Naveen, 15 years. There was property dispute between Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai and his uncle Neelappa Yallappa Menasinakai over partitioning the family properties. In the said partition Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai had got 3 acres 3 guntas of land and Neelappa Yallappa Menasinakai got 4 acres 4 guntas of land. Complainant with his father and elders of the village advised to get partition of the properties equally. Mahantesh Neelappa Menasinakai was following the victim and threatening so also sexually harassing deceased Sunanda. Complainant informed the said fact to her husband Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai, but he expressed his inability to interfere. When the said Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai was advised to file police complaint, refrained himself from filing complaint on the pretext of family prestige. Complainant and his father Dilleppa Havanur on 6/9/2022 had been to Narayanapura village for Ganesh festival and for convening meeting of elders to advise Mahantesh Neelappa Menasinakai. When they were in the said village, on 8/9/2022 at about 1.30 p.m. accused by means of sickle assaulted on Sunanda with his other members of the family and threatened persons who went to pacify the quarrel. On these allegations made in the complaint the case was registered in Kundagol P.S. Crime No. 98/2022 for the aforementioned offences.

7. The records produced by the petitioner would go to show that complainant has given further statement dtd. 9/9/2022 that cousin of Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai, i.e., Mahantesh Neelappa Menasinakai, for the last 8 years was having illicit relationship with deceased Sunanda and residing in Kuruvinakoppa village. The deceased Sunanda was not amenable to advice of the complainant and elders to join the company of her husband Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai and continued her relationship with accused. About six months back prior to the filing of complaint, deceased Sunanda by leaving Kuruvinakoppa village and the company of accused came to Nadigatti village of complainant. About a week prior to the filing of complaint, complainant with his father and elders by advising the deceased Sunanda, left her to Yerinarayanapura village to lead marital life with accused.

7(a). On 8/9/2022 at 12.30 noon brother in law of complainant Manjunath Fakirappa Menasinakai over phone informed the accused by means of sickle has assaulted on Sunanda and she is shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi in ambulance as she sustained grievous injuries over her neck. He further disclosed that while he was in the house, his son Niranjan came and informed that in front of the house of Mahadevi Hugar while deceased Sunanda was proceeding on the road, accused being armed with sickle assaulted on her neck and she is lying in the pool of blood on the road. He further stated that when his

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top