High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused No.1 in Murder Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence of Overt Act. Petitioner/Accused No.1 Allegedly Involved in Offences Under Sections 504, 341, 302, 212 r/w 34 IPC, but Court Found No Specific Role in Causing Death.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sri Preethu @ Preethesh B Sulaya, filed a criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail in C.C.No.3497/2019 arising out of Crime No.107/2019 registered by Puttur Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 504, 341, 302, 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner is accused No.1 and has been in judicial custody since his arrest. The case stems from an incident on 3.9.2019 at about 11.30 p.m., when the accused persons and the deceased attended a Yakshagana programme near Sampya Rural Police Station limit. Accused No.2 questioned the deceased about a previous altercation, and during a verbal altercation, Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 held the deceased's hands, while the petitioner/accused No.1 took a stone and threatened the deceased. Subsequently, the deceased died. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner had no role in the death and that the overt act attributed to him was only threatening with a stone, not causing the fatal injury. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the role attributed to the petitioner was only that he took a stone and threatened the deceased, and there was no prima facie evidence that he caused the fatal injury. The court also noted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and his custodial interrogation is not required. Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner subject to certain conditions.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Regular Bail - Petitioner/Accused No.1 sought bail in a murder case - Court held that the role attributed to the petitioner was only that he took a stone and threatened the deceased, but there was no prima facie evidence that he caused the fatal injury - Held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as his custodial interrogation is not required and he is in judicial custody since arrest (Paras 1-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner/accused No.1 is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC for offences punishable under Sections 504, 341, 302, 212 r/w 34 of IPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in C.C.No.3497/2019 (Crime No.107/2019) of Puttur Rural Police Station, subject to executing a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner shall appear before the court regularly and not tamper with prosecution witnesses.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 439 CrPC
  • Prima facie case
  • Overt act
  • Role of accused
  • Custodial interrogation
  • Judicial custody
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 199

Criminal Petition No. 2701 of 2020

2020-07-13

K. Somashekar

Nishir Kumar Shetty, Divakar M. Maddur

Sri Preethu @ Preethesh B Sulaya

State of Karnataka

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal petition for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC

Remedy Sought

Petitioner/accused No.1 sought enlargement on bail in C.C.No.3497/2019 (Crime No.107/2019) for offences under Sections 504, 341, 302, 212 r/w 34 IPC

Filing Reason

Petitioner has been in judicial custody since arrest and seeks bail

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC for offences including murder under Section 302 IPC?

Submissions/Arguments

Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner had no role in the death and the overt act attributed to him was only threatening with a stone, not causing the fatal injury. Learned HCGP opposed the bail petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The role attributed to the petitioner was only that he took a stone and threatened the deceased, and there is no prima facie evidence that he caused the fatal injury. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The role attributed to the petitioner is that he took a stone and threatened the deceased. There is no prima facie evidence that the petitioner caused the fatal injury. The petitioner is in judicial custody and his custodial interrogation is not required.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Criminal Petition No. 2701 of 2020 under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail in C.C.No.3497/2019 (Crime No.107/2019) registered by Puttur Rural Police Station for offences under Sections 504, 341, 302, 212 r/w 34 IPC. The petition was heard and disposed of by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on 13.07.2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 504, 341, 302, 212, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused No.1 in Murder Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence of Overt Act. Petitioner/Accused No.1 Allegedly Involved in Offences Under Sections 504, 341, 302, 212 r/w 34 IPC, but Court Found No Specific Role...
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal in Murder Case Due to Unreliable Testimony and Lack of Corroboration. Enmity as Motive Insufficient Without Credible Evidence Under Sections 302, 114, 323 IPC and Section 135 Bombay Police Act.