Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
Prakash @ Neni, S/O Late Arumyraju – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.
1. This petition is filed by accused No. 11 under Section 439 of BNSS praying to grant bail in S.C. No. 1416/2021 (crime No. 156/2021 of Koramangala Police Station) registered for offence punishable under Sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 120(B), 201, 307, 302, 35, 37 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 25(1)(1-B), 27(3) of Indian Arms Act, 1959 pending on the file of LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned SPP II for respondent – State.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that earlier petitioner had filed petitions seeking bail and they have been rejected. The accusation against the petitioner is that he intimated the movement of the deceased to the other accused who killed the deceased. Petitioner was not on the spot at the time of incident. Accused Nos. 8 and 9 who were present at the spot have been granted bail on the ground that they were not holding any weapons at the time of alleged offence. Eye witnesses, namely, C.W.1 to C.W.3, C.W.18, C.W.19, C.W.20 have been examined. In the charge sheet totally 111 witnesses are cited and out of them some witnesses are exa
The court ruled that accused not directly involved in a crime may be entitled to bail based on parity with co-accused and excessive duration of custody without trial progression.
The court determined that prolonged detention does not automatically entitle an accused to bail when substantial evidence of guilt exists, underscoring the rights to a speedy trial within serious cri....
The court ruled that the seriousness of charges and ongoing risk to witnesses outweigh the defendant's custody length and medical claims, justifying bail denial.
Bail for accused involved in heinous crimes requires careful assessment of individual roles and public safety, with parity not considered if roles differ significantly.
Prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify the grant of bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The severity of the charges and the prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge are crucial in deciding bail applications in serious offences.
Bail applications in serious criminal cases require careful consideration of evidence and their implications for witness safety, as confinement remains the default in cases involving severe charges.
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
