High CourtsSingle Bench

IMRAN vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 3 January 2018 · Citation: (2018) 01 KAR CK 0123

HON’BLE JUDGES
Budihal R.B.
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-439>Section 439</a> - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail · <a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-302>Section 302</a>, <a href=1767-34>Se
CASE NUMBER
9156 of 2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 375 words
1.

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under

Section 302 read with 34 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.188/2017.

2.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that petitioner was residing separately with one son and his

wife was residing separately with another son, who is the deceased. It is his contention that there are no direct witnesses to show the involvement

of the petitioner in committing the alleged murder of the deceased and case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and even there are

no circumstances to establish the chain about the involvement of the petitioner herein. He has further submitted that now the investigation is

completed and charge sheet has been filed, hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

4.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that there are no direct witnesses to the

incident and case rests on circumstantial evidence.

5.

Looking to the prosecution material though it is contended by the prosecution that the present petitioner has given voluntary statement but there

is no recovery as such. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner has contended in the petition that he is

innocent and also undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, looking to the materials placed on record, by

imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be enlarged on bail.

6.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail of the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34

of IPC registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No.188/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to 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 has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.