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

Sunil Sindhe And Others vs The State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|02 December, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7731/2019 BETWEEN:
1. SUNIL SINDHE S/O SHARAVAN SINDHE AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT/NO.8, PERIYANNA MUNISWAMAPPA LANE S P ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002.
2. SMT ANITHA SINDHE W/O LATE SHARAVAN SINDHE AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R.AT.NO.8, PERIYANNA MUNISWAMAPPA LANE S P ROAD BENGALURU – 560 002. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI.BALAKRISHNA A, ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CITY MARKET P.S. BENGALURU, REP. BY: SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.174/2019 REGISTERED BY CITY MARKET POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIOSN 341, 504, 307 AND 302 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the State. Perused the records.
2. A person by name Shivakumar, brother of the deceased Shekar Singh lodged a complaint stating that accused persons as well as the complainant and his brother were doing business of some spices in City Market Area, particularly on the footpath of Grain Bazar Road. On 22.09.2019 there was a verbal altercation between 2nd petitioner as well as the deceased. In such context, it is alleged that due to business rivalry, 2nd petitioner abetted and instigated the other accused persons to do away with the life of deceased Shekar Singh. In that context, it is alleged that the 1st petitioner caught hold the deceased Shekar Singh and other accused persons by name Suresh and Arun have stabbed on the stomach and back of the deceased, who sustained severe injuries and was admitted to Victoria Hospital but later he died due to the consequence of injuries. On the above said allegations, the police initially registered a case under Section 307 IPC and after the death of the deceased they registered a case under Sections 307, 302 read with 34 IPC.
3. Learned counsel has also produced some material to show that petitioner No.1 is suffering from right lower limb lymphedema with cellulites and in fact, he is not able to walk. The 2nd petitioner is a lady who has not actually participated in the assault but it is only stated that she instigated the other accused persons i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2 for assaulting the deceased or with an intention to kill him they assaulted him on the basis of the instigation of petitioner No.2, has to be considered by the trial Court during the course of trial. However, added to that petitioner No.1 was not in a position to catch hold the deceased and in fact, whether he has caught hold or whether there was any common intention on his part to facilitate the other accused persons to do away with the life of the deceased is also a fact that has to be established during the course of full fleged trial.
4. The main allegation is against accused Nos.1 and 2, who were actually armed with deadly weapons like knife and they have stabbed the deceased. Therefore, considering the nature of allegations, facts of the case, and the role of the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail particularly, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when they were already arrested, interrogated and they are in judicial custody and that they are no more required for any further investigation. Hence, the following:
O R D E R The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.174/2019 of City Market Police Station, Bengaluru registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307, 302 read with 34 IPC subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall execute their personal bonds for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with Two solvent sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against them is disposed of.
v) The first petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE brn
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

Sunil Sindhe And Others vs The State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
02 December, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra