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

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

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

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -