Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
NAGESHA V/S STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY S.H.O. OF BEECHANAHALLI P.S., REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, decided on Thursday, November 30, 2017.
[ In the High Court of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 6786 of 2017. ] 30/11/2017
Judge(s) : R.B. BUDIHAL
Advocate(s) : V.R. Balaraj. K Nageshwarappa, HCGP.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    (Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.99/2017 of Beechanahalli P.S. Mysuru District for the offences P/U/Ss 302 201 202 read with Section 34 of IPC.)1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302 201 202 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.99/2017.2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.3. The father of deceased Karthik is the complainant. As per the allegation deceased Karthik accused No.1 and accused No.3 have brought chicken and baked in the land of accused No.1. At that time deceased came in contact with live electric wire and died at the spot. But the complainant father of the deceased has mentioned in the complaint that accused persons have committed the murder of his son. On the basis of the said compliant case was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons.4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition FIR complaint and other materials placed on record along with the petition and also perused the post mortem report and the opinion of the Doctor regarding the cause of death of the deceased.5. The Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased is of the opinion that the death is due to cardiac failure as a result of atrial fibrillation secondary to electric shock. So the opinion of the Doctor also prima facie shows that death is because of electric shock. Therefore the alleged offence under Section 302 of IPC does not attract to the case on hand.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of the bail order dated 7.11.2017 passed in Crl.P.No.7022/2017 wherein this Court has considered the entire merits of the case and ultimately allowed the petition and granted bail to accused No.3.7. Petitioner-accused No.2 has contended that there is a false implication he is innocent and not involved in committing the alleged offences. He has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. In view of the same I am of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to be granted with regular bail.8. Accordingly petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302 201 202 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.99/2017 subject to the following conditions:i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1 00 000/- and furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.