Case Note & Summary
The criminal petition was filed by accused Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 32/2020 (S.C. No. 35/2020) of Gogi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from the death of Nagappa, whose wife is the complainant. The deceased and his brothers, including accused No. 1 and the petitioners, had jointly purchased agricultural land. A family partition allotted a share to the deceased, but revenue records still reflected accused No. 1’s name. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board proposed to acquire the land for compensation of Rs. 17,43,030 per acre. Accused No. 1 suggested redistribution of the compensation among all brothers, but the deceased refused, claiming sole entitlement. This led to a conspiracy between accused Nos. 1 to 4, leveraging the deceased’s illicit relationship with accused No. 5, to murder him. The victim was killed at accused No. 5’s house on 12.03.2020, and his body was thrown into a canal using a motorcycle. The body was discovered on 18.03.2020, leading to the registration of the case and filing of charge sheet. The petitioners argued that the case rested on circumstantial evidence without eyewitnesses, that they had been in custody for over three years without trial progress, infringing their right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had already been granted bail. They placed reliance on judgments including Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar and Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb. The prosecution opposed bail, contending that the murder was pre-planned and motivated by financial gain, citing eyewitnesses CWs 15 and 16, and expressed concerns that the petitioners might abscond or threaten witnesses. The High Court noted that two earlier bail applications of the petitioners were dismissed on 25.08.2020 and 14.07.2022. The complainant (CW-1) raised concerns about threats to her life for testifying, leading the court to order police protection. The trial was pending, with CW-1’s evidence adjourned due to the Presiding Officer’s leave. The provided judgment text does not contain a final decision on the bail application, leaving the outcome undisclosed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners (accused 3 and 4) are entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC given their incarceration for over three years without trial, in view of the release of co-accused on bail and the alleged threat to the complainant.
Law Points
- right to speedy trial under Article 21
- bail under Section 439 CrPC for circumstantial evidence
- parity with released co-accused
- threat to witness protection
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (01) 59
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201407 OF 2023 (439)
Bheemaraya M N, Anita M. Reddy, Ashok Mulage
Ningappa S/O Hanamanth Surpur and Jatteppa S/O Saibanna Udnoar
The State of Karnataka through Gogi Police Station, Yadgiri
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Successive bail petition under Section 439 CrPC by accused in a murder case.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (accused Nos. 3 and 4) sought enlargement on bail pending trial in S.C.No.35/2020.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed prolonged incarceration of over three years without trial, violation of Article 21 right to speedy trial, and parity with co-accused who had been granted bail.
Previous Decisions
Earlier bail applications of the petitioners were dismissed by the Sessions Court on 25.08.2020 and 14.07.2020. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were subsequently released on bail by the High Court.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC given that they have been in custody for over three years and trial has not progressed.
Whether the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution compels grant of bail in the circumstances.
Whether the petitioners should be granted bail on the ground of parity with co-accused who have been released.
Whether the threat to complainant/eyewitnesses and the nature of the offence militate against grant of bail.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners contended that the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence with no direct eyewitnesses to the murder.
They argued that they have suffered incarceration for more than three years without progress in trial, amounting to punishment without trial and violation of Article 21.
Reliance was placed on several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the right to speedy trial and bail in cases of prolonged detention.
Petitioners sought parity with accused Nos. 1 and 2 who had already been enlarged on bail.
The prosecution argued that there is sufficient evidence of a premeditated murder motivated by financial gain, supported by eyewitnesses CWs 15 and 16.
The State expressed apprehension that the petitioners might abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses if released, particularly highlighting threats to CW-1.
It was submitted that delays in trial were attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic and the failure of investigating officers to produce the accused, which were beyond the prosecution's control.
Judgment Excerpts
The brief facts of the case are: The complainant is the wife of deceased Nagappa, who is having three brothers viz., petitioner Nos.1 to 3. It is stated that the deceased and petitioner Nos.1 to 3 have purchased agricultural land...
Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and there are no eyewitnesses to the incident.
Therefore, keeping the petitioners in custody is nothing but punishment without trial.
life and liberty of the petitioners is the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for more than three years without trial, the petitioners are in custody which is nothing but violation of Article 21
Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 has argued that accused Nos.1 and 2 have been released on bail and the accusation against these petitioners are also same as that of the accused Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, on the ground of parity prays for granting bail to these petitioners.
Accused Nos.1 and 4 have been released on bail by this Court, but CW-1 complained that there is threat to...
Procedural History
Crime No. 32/2020 was registered by Gogi Police Station on the complaint of the deceased's wife. Charge sheet was filed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) r/w 149 IPC. The case was committed to Sessions Court as S.C.No.35/2020. Petitioners (accused 3 and 4) filed earlier bail applications which were dismissed on 25.08.2020 and 14.07.2022. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were subsequently released on bail by the High Court. The present successive bail petition under Section 439 CrPC was filed. During its pendency, the court noted that the complainant CW-1 faced threats and directed police protection for her. The trial was scheduled for recording of CW-1's evidence on 27.01.2024 but was adjourned to 07.02.2024 due to the Presiding Officer's leave.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code: 302, 201, 120(B), 149
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 439, 301
- Constitution of India: Article 21
