Back
DIPAK MISRA, A.M.KHANWILKAR
VIRUPAKSHAPPA GOUDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points extracted with their corresponding references:
1. Legal Principle: Filing of Charge Sheet is not a Ground for Bail * The filing of a charge sheet does not constitute a "change of circumstance" justifying a new bail application, as it does not lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. * The trial court is obligated to apply its mind and consider all relevant factors rather than relying solely on the principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. (!) (!) (!)
2. Judicial Propriety and History of Applications * When the Supreme Court does not entertain a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the cancellation of bail, the trial court should not allow an endeavor to obtain bail on the same factual score. * Allowing a successive bail application after the Supreme Court has declined relief amounts to "absolute impropriety" and a perverse approach by the trial judge who ignores the pendency of the SLP. (!) (!) (!)
3. Bail in "Honour Killing" Cases * Bail applications cannot be entertained in cases involving "honour killings." * In such cases, where the motive stems from community honor and vengeance against inter-caste relationships, the gravity of the crime and the nature of the offense preclude the grant of liberty. (!)
4. Factual Background of the Case * The appellants were charged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 302, 504, and 114 IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC for the murder of a young man. (!) * The deceased had eloped with the daughter of the accused (Appellant No. 1) from a different community ("Uppar" vs. "Lingayat"), leading to a brutal assault and death. (!) * The appellants had previously moved two bail applications which were rejected by the trial court and the High Court; a subsequent SLP to the Supreme Court was also dismissed. (!) (!)
5. Outcome * The High Court correctly cancelled the bail granted by the trial court due to the perversity of the trial judge's approach. * The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ordered the appellants to surrender to custody, and directed the trial judge to take them into custody. (!)
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants, who have been arraigned as accused in sessions case being S.C. No.90 of 2015 arising out of Crime No.118 of 2015, registered at Raichur Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 302, 504, 114 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after being taken into custody, in the course of investigation being aspirant for obtaining liberty, preferred an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), that is, Criminal Misc. No. 457 of 2015 in the court of Principal Sessions Judge at Raichur, which stood dismissed.
3. Being grieved by the aforesaid order of rejection for grant of bail, the accused-appellants moved the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench in Criminal Petition No. 200629 of 2015. The High Court adverted to the deadly weapons that were carried by the accused persons, the nature of injuries sustained on the vital parts by the deceased and the allegation of specific overt acts, and rejected the application.
4. Thereafter, a second application for grant of bail was moved by the appellants before the Principal Sessions Judge at Raichur, t
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
