High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Premeditation and Long Incarceration. Court Considers Case May Fall Under Section 304 IPC Instead of 302 IPC, and Orders Release on Bail.

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

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4, filed a criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 150/2019 registered at Harihara Town Police Station, Davanagere District, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case arose from an incident on 14.10.2019 at about 11:45 p.m., when the deceased was returning from Hotel Pariwar with Shakunthala, the sister of accused Nos. 1 and 4. The petitioners, along with other accused, allegedly assaulted the deceased with stones, sticks, and bats, and fisted him, leading to his death. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners had a strong objection to the deceased moving with their sister. The petitioners' counsel argued that the material collected by the investigating agency indicated that the murder was not pre-planned, as no weapons were carried by the petitioners, and the assault was with stones and sticks found at the spot. Counsel submitted that even if the allegations were accepted, the case would fall under Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) rather than Section 302 IPC (murder). Additionally, counsel pointed out that the investigation was completed, the trial had concluded, and the petitioners had been in prison for over one year. The court, after examining the materials on record, observed that the case of the prosecution was based on the petitioners' objection to the deceased's relationship with their sister. The court noted that the allegations did not indicate a pre-planned murder and that the weapons used were not carried by the petitioners but were found at the spot. The court also considered that the investigation was complete and the trial had concluded, and the petitioners had been incarcerated for more than one year. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, especially in light of the possibility that the case may fall under Section 304 IPC. The court ordered the release of the petitioners on bail subject to certain conditions, including executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each with one surety, appearing before the court as required, not tampering with prosecution witnesses, and not committing similar offences.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Grant of Bail - Petitioners accused of murder under Section 302 IPC - Court considered that the assault was not pre-planned, no weapons were carried, and the case may fall under Section 304 IPC - Held that petitioners are entitled to bail, especially since investigation is complete and they have been in custody for over one year (Paras 2-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 439 of CrPC for offences under Sections 302, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petition and ordered the release of the petitioners on bail subject to conditions: executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each with one surety, appearing before the court as required, not tampering with witnesses, and not committing similar offences.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 439 CrPC
  • Prima facie case under Section 304 IPC instead of 302 IPC
  • Completion of investigation and trial
  • Long incarceration
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 211

Criminal Petition No.2635/2020

2020-07-02

John Michael Cunha

Santosh S. Nagarale, Thejesh P.

Nagaraja, Ramesha @ Ramesh Naik, Raghavendra @ Raghu

State by Harihara City Police Station

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail petition under Section 439 CrPC

Remedy Sought

Enlargement on bail in Crime No.150/2019 for offences under Sections 302, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC

Filing Reason

Petitioners are accused of murder and seek bail pending trial

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC given the nature of allegations and completion of investigation.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners' counsel argued that the murder was not pre-planned, no weapons were carried, and the case may fall under Section 304 IPC. Counsel also submitted that investigation is complete, trial concluded, and petitioners have been in custody for over one year.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the allegations did not indicate a pre-planned murder, the weapons were not carried by the petitioners, and the case may fall under Section 304 IPC. Additionally, the investigation was complete, trial concluded, and petitioners had been in custody for over one year, warranting grant of bail.

Judgment Excerpts

Petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 against whom charge sheet is laid under Sections 302, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. These facts even if accepted as true would only bring the case within Section 304 of IPC. On going through the materials on record, it is seen that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioners herein had strong objection to the deceased moving with their sister – Shakunthala...

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a criminal petition under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail in Crime No.150/2019 of Harihara Town Police Station for offences under Sections 302, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. The court heard the petition and passed orders on 02.07.2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 304, 504, 506, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Use of Indigent Patients Fund for Replacement of Medical Equipment in Charitable Hospital. The Court held that the Monitoring Committee's rejection of the application was arbitrary and directed reconsideration under the Schem...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Directs Revenue Authority to Conclude Patta Cancellation Enquiry Within Time Frame. Writ of Mandamus Issued to Revenue Divisional Officer to Dispose of Representation Seeking Cancellation of Patta After Giving Due Opportunity to Pri...