Chandramouli vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 March, 2017

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Chandramouli vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 March, 2017

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                            1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017

                        BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8717/2016


BETWEEN:

Chandramouli @ Chandra
S/o late Yogesh,
Aged about 20 years
R/o Pilenahalli,
Sakarayapatna Hobli,
Kadur Taluk,
Chikmagalur District - 577 135                ...Petitioner

(By Sri. M. Aruna Shyam, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka
Through New Extension Police Station,
Tumakuru.
Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore - 560 001.                      ... Respondent


     This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.PC praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.25/2016 of New Extension Police Station,
Tumakuru for the offence punishable under section 302
and 120 (B) of IPC.
                             2


    This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:-

                        ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C by accused No.3 against whom charge sheet is laid for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 120B of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased who are parents of accused No.1 were opposing the marriage proposal of accused No.1 and hence to do away with his parents accused No.1 along with his friends accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 hatched a conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, engaged accused Nos. 2 and 3 contract killers to liquidate the parents of accused No.1. According to the prosecution, on the intervening night of 13/14.03.2016 at about 2.00 a.m., accused Nos.2 and 3 entered the house of the deceased, when they were sleeping in their bed room. Accused No.2 assaulted Gopal Shetty, the father of accused No.1 with dagger and accused No.3 assaulted Roopa, the mother of accused No.1 with dagger causing instantaneous death of the two victims. 3

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that investigation has been completed, accused Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 are already been enlarged on bail by this Court and having regard to the evidence collected by the investing agency, the present petitioner is also entitled for the bail.

4. The learned HCGP has opposed the application interalia contending that the evidence collected by the investigating agency prima-facie establishes that the petitioner herein and accused No.2 committed the murder for monetary gain and therefore, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail.

5. Having gone through the charge sheet copy produced along with the petition and having regard to the direct accusation levelled against the petitioner that the petitioner was a contract killer and committed the murder of one of the parents of accused No.1 for monetary gain and the said allegations are supported with prima-facie material, I am of the view, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of bail at this stage. Having regard to the background of the petitioner and especially, in view of the 4 fact that the petitioner is a contract killer, the possibility of the petitioner getting involved in similar offences cannot be ruled out. The allegations levelled against the petitioner, indicate that the society has to be protected from the petitioner until the charges are proved or disproved against him. In view of the above, petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE MBM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court