Varun C vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Karnataka High Court

Varun C vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2024

                            -1-
                                        CRL.P 805/2024



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                         BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA
           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 805/2024

BETWEEN:

VARUN C.
S/O. CHANDRAKANTH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.659, KUGUBANDE ROAD
NEAR E & F, A TO Z SUPERMARKET
KUVEMPUNAGAR,
MYSURU DISTRICT-23

                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADV.)
AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY JAYALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE
MYSURU DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.

                                         ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)

     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.82/2023
(CR.NO.57/2022) OF JAYALAKSHMIPURAM P.S., MYSURU CITY
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302,201,120b,489 R/W 34 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSION JUDGE, AT MYSURU.
                                       -2-
                                                            CRL.P 805/2024



     IN THIS PETITION ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON 16.02.2024, COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
                                ORDER

Accused No.2 in S.C.No.82/2023 has filed application

under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

seeking to release on bail.

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that

on 05th November, 2022, at 8.45 am, Jayalakshmipuram

Police registered a case in No.57 of 2022 against

Madappa, his sons, and others under Section 302 read

with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The complaint was

filed by Mr. Sanjay Angadi, son-in-law of the deceased

R.N. Kulkarni. The complainant alleged that Mr. Kulkarni,

a retired Assistant Director of Intelligence Bureau residing

in Mysuru, had a dispute with Madappa over the

construction of Madappa’s house adjacent to Mr. Kulkarni’s

residence. Mr. Kulkarni had requested Madappa and his

children to leave space between their properties.

Mr. Kulkarni pursued legal action and obtained an

injunction against Madappa’s construction. Madappa
-3-
CRL.P 805/2024

challenged this order in the High Court, offering to

demolish the house, if deemed illegal. The complaint

claims Mr. Kulkarni said Madappa and his children aimed

to harm him, citing an unverified police complaint. The

deceased-R.N. Kulkarni filed a complaint before the

Commissioner of Mysuru City Corporation and also filed

Writ Petition No.1947 of 2022 before the High Court of

Karnataka. However, on 02nd November, 2022, Mysuru

City Corporation passed an order for demolition of the

house illegally constructed by said Mr. Madappa.

2.1. It is also alleged that on 04th November, 2022,

at 5.00 pm, Mr. R.N. Kulkarni mentioned he was going for

a walk but didn’t return. At 6.31 pm, his car driver

informed the complainant that Mr. Kulkarni had fallen and

passed away. The complainant went to Kamakshi

Hospital, confirming his father-in-law’s demise. Police also

visited the hospital. The next day, after reviewing CCTV

footage at the accident site, the complainant concluded

that it was a murder. Hence complainant lodged a

complaint against Mr. Madappa, his children and others.
-4-
CRL.P 805/2024

2.2. On 07th November, 2022, the petitioner was

arrested by the Respondent Police around charge-sheet

against the petitioner as accused No.1 and another by

name Mr. Varun as accused No.2 for offences punishable

under Sections 302, 120(B), 489, 201 read with Section

34 of Indian Penal Code. The respondent police allege

that accused No.1 conspired with accused No.2-Mr. Varun

to commit the murder of R.N. Kulkarni and dashed him by

Honda Accord car and committed his murder depicting it

as an accident. A charge-sheet came to be filed against

the petitioner and another for offences punishable under

Sections 302, 120(B), 489, 201 read with Section 34 of

Indian Penal Code. Petitioner had filed application under

Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the I

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru and the same

was rejected on 23rd March, 2023. Hence petitioners had

filed bail application in Criminal petition No.4428/2023 and

the same was rejected by this Court. Now, the petitioner

sought for bail on changed circumstances.
-5-
CRL.P 805/2024

Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner

Sri. K.C.Pratheep:

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner

Sri.K.C. Pratheep submits that the plain reading of the

complaint does not make prima facie case against the

petitioner for which he has been charged. The entire case

rests on circumstantial evidence which is to be proved at

the time of trial. Even as per the case of the prosecution

the deceased died on account of accident and further as

per column No.17 of the charge sheet. Accused No.1 who

drove the vehicle and dashed against the accused.

Therefore, at this stage, even accepting the case of

prosecution, the allegation of murder is against accused

No.1. Hence, further custodial interrogation of the

petitioner is not required. Accused No.2 having not all

participated in the alleged crime, only on the basis of

voluntary statement of accused No.1, the petitioner has

implicated as accused No.2 and there is no prima facie

material against him.

-6-

CRL.P 805/2024

4. Further he submits that, the petitioner has

earlier approached this Court in Crl.P.No.3755/2023 which

came to be withdrawn and subsequently filed another

petition in Crl.P.No.4428/2023 and this Court by its order

dated 18.08.2023, dismissed the petition on merits.

Further, liberty was given to the petitioner to file

successive bail application if there is any positive of

changed circumstances. As such, this petition is filed on

medical grounds. The petitioner is in custody since

08.11.2022. The mother of the petitioner who is aged

about 58 years is suffering from DM+hypertension

uncontrolled CVA with seizure disorder and herpes zoster

and the patient is at severe stress, needs rest and

someone to look after at home as she had fallen more

than 4-5 times for seizure, she is put on treatment with

follow up. Since the condition of the mother of petitioner

is critical, the presence of the petitioner for limited time is

absolutely necessary as the father of the petitioner is

normally staying away from Mysore as the petitioner

father has agricultural lands at Chikkamalalli village,
-7-
CRL.P 805/2024

Bettadapura Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk which is almost

70ksms away from Mysore. The mother of the petitioner

is residing in Mysore all the time. Therefore, in this time

of medical urgency, the presence of the petitioner with his

mother is absolutely necessary. To substantiate his

arguments, he has produced medical certificate dated

01.12.2023 issued by Dr.B.A.Shanthakumar, Senior

Specialist, Anesthesiologist, General Hospital, K.R.Nagar,

Mysore, with medical prescriptions, lab report issued by

Mallige Diagnostic Centre, medical bills, medication

prescription slip issued by JSS Hospital and RTC extracts

pertaining to land in Survey Nos.44/3, 18/5, 18/4, 17/3

and 17/2 of Hiremalali Village, Bettadapura Hobli,

Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore and SAS receipt issued by

Mysore City Corporation and Form No.1 issued by Mysore

City Corporation and assessment extract issued by the

Mysore City Corporation and also the decisions of the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in

Crl.P.No.7575/2020 dated 12.07.2021 and
-8-
CRL.P 805/2024

Crl.P.No.6212/2020 dated 08.01.2021. On all these

grounds, he sought to allow the bail application.

Submission of learned High Court Government Pleader
Sri. K. Nageshwarappa:

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader

submits that while disposing the bail application filed on

behalf of this petitioner in Crl.P.No.3684/2023 c/w.

Crl.P.No.4428/2023, this Court has held that there are

prima-facie materials to attract the alleged commission of

offence punishable under Section 302, 120B, 489, 201

read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

6. The petitioner has not made out any new

grounds/changed circumstances to file this subsequent bail

application. The medical certificate issued by

Dr.B.A.Shanthakumar, Senior Specialist, Anesthesiologist,

General Hospital, K.R.Nagar, Mysore reveals that the

petitioner’s mother Smt.Pankaja M R is suffering from

DM+hypertension uncontrolled CVA with seizure disorder

and herpes zoster. This certificate is not issued by the

concerned Neurologist. The Senior Specialist,
-9-
CRL.P 805/2024

Anesthesiologist is not a competent authority to issue this

medical certificate as to the health condition of the mother

of petitioner. The contents of medical certificate reveals

that the mother of the petitioner is not suffering from any

severe/serious disease. She has not admitted to the

hospital and she is taking treatment as outpatient. On this

ground, the petitioner is not entitled for any temporary

bail as sought for. The alleged commission of offence is

heinous in nature. If this petitioner is released on bail, it

will affect the society at large. On these grounds, he

sought for rejection of bail application.

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

following points would arise for my consideration:

(i) whether the petitioner/accused No.2 made out a

ground to release him on bail?

(ii) what order?

8. My answer to the above points are as under:

Point No.1: in the negative.

Point No.2: as per final order.

– 10 –

CRL.P 805/2024

Regarding point No.1:

9. I have examined the materials placed before

this Court. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in

Crl.P.No.3684/2023 c/w Crl.P.No.4428/2023 dated

18.08.2023 , this Court has observed that the prosecution

has successfully brought the prima facie case against

accused Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, this Court has

dismissed the petition with an observation that it is always

open to the petitioners to renew there request for grant of

bail with a successive bail application, if there is a positive

changed circumstances.

10. The main ground urged by the learned counsel

for petitioner is that the condition of mother of petitioner

is critical and the presence of petitioner with his mother is

absolutely necessary as father of the petitioner is normally

staying away from Mysore and petitioner’s father has

agricultural lands at Chikkamalalli village, Bettadapura

Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk which is almost 70kms away from

Mysore.

– 11 –

CRL.P 805/2024

11. A perusal of the medical certificate dated

01.12.2023 issued by Dr.B.A.Shanthakumar, Senior

Specialist, Anesthesiologist reveals that the mother of

petitioner is suffering from DM+hypertension uncontrolled

CVA with seizure disorder and herpes zoster and the

patient is at severe stress, needs rest and someone to look

after at home as she had fallen more than 4-5 times for

seizure, she is put on treatment with follow up. The

prescription issued by Shrihari Clinic reveals that the age

of mother of petitioner is 58 years as on 28.11.2023 and

she is not admitted to the hospital as inpatient and she is

taking treatment as outpatient. That there is no medical

record to show that the mother of petitioner is suffering

from severe/serious disease.

12. Considering the nature and gravity of offence

and also facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the

considered view that at this stage, the petitioner is not

entitled for grant of bail. If the petitioner is released on

bail, definitely it will affect the society at large.

– 12 –

CRL.P 805/2024

13. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the

case, it is not just and proper to grant bail to the

petitioner. Hence, I answer point No.1 in negative.

Regarding point No.2:

14. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The bail application filed by the petitioner under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SSD

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *