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

Sri Shreenath @ Seena vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|23 July, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.1521/2019 Between:
Sri Shreenath @ Seena, S/o Shankarappa, Aged about 29 years, Doddakammannahalli, Begur Hobli, Anekal Taluk – 562 106, Bengaluru Rural District. … Petitioner (By Sri Veeranna G. Tigadi, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Talaghatpura Police Station, Bengaluru, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor. … Respondent (By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.266/2018 (C.C. No.228/2018) of Thalaghattapura P.S., Bangalore City for the offences p/u/s 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC, 27 of Arms Act and Section 3(2) V of SC/ST (POA) Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.266/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 302, 149 of IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(2) and 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act.
2. The complainant has been served with notice.
3. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was filed by Ramappa, father of the deceased. It is stated that the elder son of the complainant, i.e., the deceased had married Vanishree about 10 years back and they had two children from the said wed lock. It is further stated that the deceased had allegedly developed an illicit relationship with one Manjula who is the sister of accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is further stated that there were frequent altercations between the deceased and his wife in this regard. It is alleged that on 19.09.2018, when the complainant was in his house, friends of the complainant informed him that his son was murdered. In light of the said incident, complaint was lodged, FIR is registered, investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. Petitioner is sought to be implicated along with accused No.1 as per the version in the charge sheet.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and proof of offence is a matter for trial. It is further contended that the case rests solely on the voluntary statement of the accused which again is a matter to be established during trial.
5. Taking note of the fact that the assertion of the petitioner that there are no criminal antecedents is uncontroverted; that investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed; that the case rests on circumstantial evidence as none has witnessed the commission of offence; that the voluntary statement which is the basis of charge sheet is a matter to be proved in accordance with law during trial and noticing that the present proceedings cannot be treated to be punitive in nature, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.266/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 302, 149 of IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(2) and 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE VP
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 Shreenath @ Seena vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
23 July, 2019
Judges
  • S Sunil Dutt Yadav