Karnataka HC Grants Bail to Petitioner Detained for Murder Under Section 302 of IPC

Must Read

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector &...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Follow us

On 30th July 2020, Justice K. Natarajan heard the case of Sri Ravikiran K.G. v. the State of Karnataka, via video-conferencing. The Court granted bail to the petitioner as there was no material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the death of the victim.

Facts of the case

The petition was filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner was filed for granting anticipatory bail. The deceased committed suicide and her body was floating in a lake. The mother of the deceased suspected the petitioner’s connection with the victim’s death.  

The police registered the report and made efforts to arrest the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested for a non-bailable offence. The petitioner also approached the District and Sessions court. The Hon’ble Court rejected his bail application. 

Arguments of the Petitioner

The learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that the petitioner is a lineman working in BESCOM, Tumkur. The petitioner’s cousin was married to the deceased. There was a matrimonial dispute between the Petitioner’s cousin and the deceased. 

The deceased contacted her husband and states that a vehicle will be parked near the lake and that she will not be available. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was seen floating in the lake. The petitioner is arrested by police only on suspicious grounds. 

The deceased husband has not made any complaint before the police. No FIR was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner will suffer irreparable loss if he arrested and remanded to judicial custody.    

Arguments of the Respondent

The learned counsel for the Respondent argues that the whereabouts of the petitioner is not known. However, the learned counsel of the responded agrees that there was no FIR registered against the petitioner. 

The counsel stated that the petitioner is required for the purpose of the enquiry. But the petitioner is absconding since the date of offence. 

Court’s Analysis

The case of death of the deceased was not revealed as per the submission of the Respondent’s counsel. No evidence represents the petitioner’s involvement in causing the death of the deceased. There is no evidence that specifies that the death is homicidal or suicidal. 

The court cannot assume that the petitioner has committed any offence punishable under section 302 of IPC. Even if the petitioner is accused of abetment of suicide, he cannot be punishable with death or imprisonment of life.

Court’s Decision

The Court allowed the bail application. The Petitioner will be released on bail on his executing a personal bond. The petitioner must meet the following conditions:

  1. The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with a surety for the like sum.
  2. The petitioner shall appear voluntarily before the Investigating Officer within 30 days from the date of receipt of order.
  3. The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating officer for the purpose of enquiry/ investigation.

Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Doctrine of Proportionality Must Adhere to Reasonableness Principal Test: Madras High Court

Young Men's Christian Association built a commercial complex and leased it without having due permission. The District Collector & Tahsildar issued a show-cause notice...

Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Release of ‘The White Tiger’ on the OTT Platform Netflix

A plea requesting a stay on the release of the film ‘The White Tiger’ by the American producer, John Hart Jr. alleging copyright violation was rejected by the Delhi High Court on Thursday.

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -