High CourtsSingle Bench

Manjiah vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 14 March 2011 · Citation: (2011) 03 KAR CK 0283

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.S. Pachhapure, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 640 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

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

9 paragraphs · 477 words

A.S. Pachhapure, J

1.

The Petitioner is the fourth Accused in the Crime registered and it is the case of the prosecution that on 07.08.2010 at about 6:30 p.m. Udaya. K (the deceased) was proceeding to Nyamathi Village to meet his mother and till 9:30 p.m. he did not return. Later at about 11:30 p.m. he came to the house with severe bleeding injuries and when the complainant asked as to what happened, he told that Accused No. 1 and 2 and others while returning to his village came across the road and after stopping the vehicle caused the assault and spying so while the family members gave water he drunk it and died due to the injuries sustained. It is in these circumstances, that a complaint came to be filed by the brother of the deceased.

2.

During farther investigation, it is revealed that the Petitioner who is the fourth Accused took the deceased on the meter cycle to Nyamathi and while returning back this incident happened and that the Accused No. 4 who is the friend of the other Accused conspired to commit the murder of the deceased and in that context he had taken the deceased on the scooter and the accident happened, while returning back, So far as the conspiracy it is a matter to be proved, by the prosecution during trial.

3.

Perusal of the records reveal that the Accused No. 1 and 2 have really caused an assault on the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 3 had illicit relationship with the first Accused and it is in this context that the Accused No. 1 and 2 said to have Caused injuries to the deceased who later succumbed to the said injuries.

4.

There is no part played by the Petitioner in do far as the assault is concerned and the question as to whether he has conspired with Accused No. 1 and 2 to do away with the life of the deceased is a matter for consideration during the trial. By imposing certain restrictions, presence of the Petitioner can be secured for the purpose of the trial.

5.

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,090/- with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdiction Magistrate with the further following conditions:

(i) That the Petitioner shall attend the Police Station on every Sunday between 10.00 to 11.00 a.m. till further orders.

(ii) He shall attend the Court regularly.

(iii) He shall not directly or indirectly, makes any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.