High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused in Murder Case Under SC/ST Act — Prima Facie Case Not Made Out Against Accused Nos. 2 and 3. Court found that the role attributed to petitioners was not specific and they were not named in the FIR, leading to grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Sri Umesh and Sri Hanumantharayappa, accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Spl.C.C.No.213/2019 pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, filed a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail. They were facing trial for offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 2(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising from Crime No.39/2019 of Thyamagondlu Police Station. The prosecution case was that on 05.05.2019 at about 8:30 pm, the complainant's son Puttaraju went to a shop near the bus stop and was allegedly murdered. The petitioners' counsel argued that they were not named in the FIR and no specific role was attributed to them. The High Court Government Pleader submitted that the complainant had been notified. The court, after hearing both sides, observed that the petitioners were not named in the FIR and their specific role was not indicated. Consequently, the court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail and ordered their release on bail subject to conditions.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Prima Facie Case - Petitioners were accused Nos. 2 and 3 in a murder case under Section 302 IPC and SC/ST Act - Court held that since the petitioners were not named in the FIR and their specific role was not attributed, they were entitled to bail - Held that bail should be granted when there is no prima facie case against the accused (Paras 4-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners, accused Nos. 2 and 3, are entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 2(v) of the SC/ST Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioners to be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as the trial court may impose.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
  • Prima facie case
  • Role of accused
  • SC/ST Act Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 2(v)
  • IPC Section 302 read with 34
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 52

Criminal Petition No.2789 of 2020

2020-07-01

Sreenivas Harish Kumar

P.M.Siddamallappa for petitioners, K.S.Abhijith (HCGP) for respondent No.1

Sri. Umesh and Sri. Hanumantharayappa

State by Thyamagondlu Police and Smt. Gangamma

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Remedy Sought

Enlargement of petitioners on bail in Crime No.39/2019 of Thyamagondlu Police Station for offences under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 2(v) of SC/ST Act.

Filing Reason

Petitioners were accused Nos. 2 and 3 in a murder case and sought bail on the ground that they were not named in the FIR and no specific role was attributed to them.

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when they are not named in the FIR and no specific role is attributed to them.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners' counsel argued that the petitioners were not named in the FIR and no specific role was attributed to them. High Court Government Pleader submitted that the complainant was notified.

Ratio Decidendi

Bail should be granted when the accused are not named in the FIR and no specific role is attributed to them, as there is no prima facie case against them.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioners are not named in the FIR and their specific role is not indicated. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to bail.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka seeking bail in Crime No.39/2019 registered by Thyamagondlu Police Station for offences under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 2(v) of SC/ST Act. The case was pending as Spl.C.C.No.213/2019 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. The High Court heard the petition and granted bail on 01.07.2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 34
  • Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: 3(1)(r)(s), 2(v)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused in Murder Case Under SC/ST Act — Prima Facie Case Not Made Out Against Accused Nos. 2 and 3. Court found that the role attributed to petitioners was not specific and they were not named in the FIR, lea...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay Quashes Caste Validity and Show Cause Notice in Municipal Election Dispute Due to Procedural Lapses. Rival Candidate Locus Standi Recognized; Matter Remanded for Fresh Verification Following Madhuri Patil Guidelines.