Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Shrishail Alagouda @ Alagonda Chowgala – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka (Harugeri P.S.), By It’s State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
Accused No.1 in S.C. No.5049 of 2024 pending before the Court of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi arising out of Crime No.112 of 2024 registered by Harugeri Police Station, Belagavi for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 364, 302, 201 of IPC, is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking a regular bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.112 of 2024 was registered by Harugeri Police Station, Belagavi initially for offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC against petitioner and others based on the first information dated 12.06.2024 received from Smt. Bharati Irappa Chougla wife of deceased Irappa Algond Chougla. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 13.04.2024 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against seven persons and petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.1 in the charge sheet. His bail application filed before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court was rejected a
Bail granted based on lack of criminal record and time served in custody amidst circumstantial evidence in a conspiracy murder case.
The court grants bail based on the petitioners' lack of prior criminal records and the protracted timeline of the trial process, emphasizing the necessity for a fair trial without undue detention.
The court granted bail due to lengthy custody, similarity of allegations with a co-accused who received bail, and lack of evidence suggesting witness tampering.
Court permits bail for a petitioner based on lack of direct evidence of involvement in a crime, with established conditions due to other co-accused obtaining bail.
The delay in trial proceedings and the grant of bail to other accused can influence the decision to grant bail based on parity and the reliance on circumstantial evidence.
The court upheld that bail should be denied in serious offences involving premeditated murder due to potential harm to the investigation and the risk of witness tampering.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 necessitates granting bail when material witnesses have been examined, irrespective of the seriousness of the crime.
Bail should be granted when intent to commit murder is not clearly established, and circumstances suggest reasonable doubt about culpability.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 necessitates granting bail if prolonged detention occurs without substantive progress in proceedings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
