Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri Anantha @ Anandanayaka vs State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|20 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4574/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI ANANTHA @ ANANDANAYAKA S/O LATE MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT GANGENAHALLI VILLAGE KIKKERI HOBLI K.R.PET TALUK MANDYA – 577 133 …PETITIONER (BY MS.K.RAKSHA KURTHANA FOR SRI KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATES) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KIKKERI POLICE STATION BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.240/2018 (C.C.NO.69/2019) OF KIKKERI P.S., MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Respondent Police have laid the charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. The allegations are that accused Nos.1 and 2 are no other than sons of the deceased and accused No.3 is the wife of the deceased. The said deceased was addicted to alcohol and used to come to the house fully drunk and everyday was harassing and ill-treating the accused persons. In this context, all the accused have decided to do away the life of the deceased. In this background, on 24.11.2018 at about 4.00 a.m., accused No.2 caught hold of the head of the deceased, accused No.3 caught hold of the legs of the deceased, so as to enable accused No.1 to assault the deceased. Accordingly, accused No.1 pushed the towel to the mouth of the deceased and thereafter tied hands and legs with plastic rope and also dragged him to the cowshed. Thereafter, he assaulted with iron chopper on the head and neck of the deceased. Infact, accused No.1 beheaded the body of the deceased and voluntarily surrendered to the police and he disclosed the names of accused Nos.2 and 3 that accused Nos.2 and 3 have assisted him in doing away the life of the deceased.
4. In the above said facts and circumstances, accused No.3 has already been released on bail. In my opinion, accused No.2 also stands on the same footing with that of accused No.3. Accused No.3 is alleged to have caught hold of the legs of the deceased and this accused has caught hold of the head of the deceased and accused No.1 was the actual person who cut the neck of the deceased. Therefore, there are no eyewitness to the incident, it is based only on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt that they actually assisted accused No.1 in the commission of the offence.
5. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following:
O R D E R The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.240/2018 (C.C.No.69/2019) of Kikkeri police station, Mandya District pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C, K.R.Pete subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and he shall appear before the trial Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted for any genuine reasons by the Court;
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for; & iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without its prior permission, till the case registered against him is disposed of.
KSR Sd/- JUDGE
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri Anantha @ Anandanayaka vs State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
20 August, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra