Muniraju @ Upendra @ Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2015

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Muniraju @ Upendra @ Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2015

Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara

                          1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 10TH   DAY OF MARCH 2015

                       BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.336/2015

BETWEEN:
1.      MUNIRAJU @ UPENDRA @ BABU
        S/O MUNIYAPPA,
        AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
        R/O VENKATAPURA VILLAGE,
        VOKKALERI HOBLI,
        KOLAR TALUK,
        KOLAR DISTRICT,
        KOLAR-563101


2.      KUMARA
        S/O MUNIYAPPA
        AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
        R/O N.G. HULKUR VILLAGE,
        BANGARPET TALUK,
        KOLAR DISTRICT,
        KOLAR-563101.
                                      ... PETITIONERS

(By Sri: TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADV.)


AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
                                2


REPRESENTED BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KENCHARLHALLI POLICE STATION,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-561207.
                                             ... RESPONDENT

(By Sri: B.J. ESHWARAPPA, HCGP)


      CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE
PETITTIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.55/2012
(C.C.NO.121/2013) OF KENCHARLAHALLI POLICE
STATION,     CHIKKABALLAPUR       DIST  FOR  THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 302 AND 201 OF IPC AND ETC.


THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP. Perused the application filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C.

2. Petitioners are in judicial custody since 2.12.2013 and 2.1.2013 respectively. They have been shown as accused in a criminal case in Crime No.55/12 on the file of Kencharlahalli police station, Chikkaballapur District. The offences alleged 3 against them are punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34, I.P.C. After concluding investigation, charge sheet is filed and the matter has been committed to the sessions court.

3. Learned HCGP has opposed the bail application on the ground that it is too premature to disbelieve the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, and that prima facie case is forthcoming against this petitioner in regard to the murder of Jayamma.

4. The main allegation against these petitioners is that both of them trespassed into the house of deceased Jayamma in Amitapalli on 4.3.2012 and committed murder by throttling her neck on. Her body was found in B.Kothakota of Chittur District on 7.3.2012. Post mortem certificate is produced. The doctor who conducted autopsy has opined that death has taken place 4/5 days prior to post mortem examination, and that the exact cause for death could not be identified.

5. Anyhow since the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the entire investigation is over, and since the petitioners have undertaken to obey any condition that may be imposed, this is a fit case for granting the relief. Thus the apprehension of the learned HCGP could be met by imposing suitable conditions.

6. Accordingly the petition under Section 439, Cr.P.C. is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail subject to the following conditions:

1) They shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.75,000/-

with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

2) They shall mark his attendance once in 15 days in the jurisdictional police station between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. for a period of six months;

3) He shall not hold out threat to prosecution witnesses or tamper with evidence;

4) He shall attend the court on all dates of hearing, except under unavoidable circumstances. 5

5) If he violates any of the above conditions, prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE vgh*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court