High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused in Murder Case Under Section 302 IPC — Prima Facie Case Not Made Out as Evidence Points to Single Assailant and No Recovery from Petitioner. The court held that the absence of recovery of weapon from the petitioner and non-conduct of test identification parade weighed in favor of granting bail under Section 439 CrPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 12
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Kirankumar @ Kulla Kiran, accused No.1, filed a criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking bail in Crime No.124/2020 registered at Doddapete Police Station, Shivamogga, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case was pending as S.C.No.87/2020 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga. The prosecution alleged that on the date of the incident, the petitioner along with accused Nos.2 to 4 assaulted the deceased Manohar Shetty with stones, causing his death. The background involved political rivalry during Shivamogga Mahanagara Palike elections, where the deceased canvassed for Congress and the accused supported BJP. After the BJP candidate won, the deceased used to scold the accused. About two months prior, the accused had removed stones meant for culverts and temple. On the day of the incident, the accused allegedly assaulted the deceased with those stones. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated, no recovery was made from him, and the test identification parade was not conducted. The High Court Government Pleader opposed bail citing the gravity of the offence. The court, after hearing both sides, noted that the prosecution's case primarily relied on the evidence of CWs 1 and 2, who were not eyewitnesses. The court observed that the overt acts attributed to the petitioner were not clearly established, and the weapon used was not recovered from him. The test identification parade was not conducted, which weakened the identification. Considering these factors, the court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for bail and allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to be released on bail subject to conditions including furnishing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, not tampering with evidence, and appearing before the court regularly.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - The court considered whether the petitioner-accused No.1 should be enlarged on bail for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner along with others assaulted the deceased with stones, but the evidence indicated that only one accused inflicted the fatal injury and no recovery was made from the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for bail, considering the absence of recovery and the fact that the test identification parade was not conducted. (Paras 1-6)

B) Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC - Common Intention - The court examined the applicability of Section 34 IPC. The prosecution's case was that the petitioner and others shared common intention to cause death. However, the court noted that the overt acts attributed to the petitioner were not clearly established and the weapon used was not recovered from him. The court held that the ingredients of Section 34 were not prima facie satisfied against the petitioner. (Paras 3-6)

C) Evidence - Test Identification Parade - Non-conduct of TIP - The court observed that the test identification parade was not conducted by the prosecution, which weakened the identification of the petitioner as an assailant. This factor weighed in favor of granting bail. (Para 5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner-accused No.1 is entitled to bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in a murder case registered under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.124/2020 of Doddapete Police Station (S.C.No.87/2020) for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC, subject to conditions: (i) petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties; (ii) shall not tamper with prosecution evidence; (iii) shall appear before the trial court on all hearing dates; (iv) shall not indulge in similar offences; (v) shall mark attendance once in a month before the Investigating Officer until trial concludes.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 439 CrPC
  • Prima facie case
  • Section 302 IPC
  • Section 34 IPC
  • Recovery of weapon
  • Test identification parade
  • Criminal antecedents
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (11) 43

Criminal Petition No.5711/2020

2020-11-25

B.A.Patil

Sri P.P.Hegde, Sri R.D.Renukaradhya

Kirankumar @ Kulla Kiran

State of Karnataka

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

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail petition under Section 439 CrPC for offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC

Remedy Sought

Enlargement on bail by the petitioner-accused No.1

Filing Reason

Petitioner was arrested in connection with the murder of Manohar Shetty and sought bail

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated, no recovery of weapon from petitioner, test identification parade not conducted, and petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Respondent-State opposed bail citing the gravity of the offence and that the petitioner actively participated in the assault.

Ratio Decidendi

Bail under Section 439 CrPC can be granted when the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case against the accused, especially when there is no recovery of weapon from the accused, the test identification parade is not conducted, and the overt acts attributed are not clearly established.

Judgment Excerpts

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.124/2020 of Doddapete Police Station... I have heard the learned counsel Sri.P.P.Hegde, for petitioner-accused No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.R.D.Renukaradhya, for respondent-State. The gist of the case of the prosecution in brief is that accused Nos.1 and 2 along with deceased Manohar Shetty participated in Shivamogga Mahanagara Palike... The court observed that the test identification parade was not conducted by the prosecution, which weakened the identification of the petitioner as an assailant.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a criminal petition under Section 439 CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka seeking bail in Crime No.124/2020 registered at Doddapete Police Station, Shivamogga, for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC. The case was pending as S.C.No.87/2020 before the III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivamogga. The petition was heard and disposed of on 25.11.2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302, Section 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused in Murder Case Under Section 302 IPC — Prima Facie Case Not Made Out as Evidence Points to Single Assailant and No Recovery from Petitioner. The court held that the absence of recovery of weapon from t...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accused in Rape and POCSO Case Based on Consensual Relationship and Delay in FIR. The court held that where the FIR is lodged after an inordinate delay and the allegations indicate a consensual relationship, the...