Karnataka High Court
Varun C vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2024
-1-
CRL.P 805/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 805/2024
BETWEEN:
VARUN C.
S/O. CHANDRAKANTH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O NO.659, KUGUBANDE ROAD
NEAR E & F, A TO Z SUPERMARKET
KUVEMPUNAGAR,
MYSURU DISTRICT-23
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY JAYALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE
MYSURU DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.82/2023
(CR.NO.57/2022) OF JAYALAKSHMIPURAM P.S., MYSURU CITY
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302,201,120b,489 R/W 34 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSION JUDGE, AT MYSURU.
-2-
CRL.P 805/2024
IN THIS PETITION ARGUMENTS BEING HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON 16.02.2024, COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS", THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Accused No.2 in S.C.No.82/2023 has filed application
under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
seeking to release on bail.
2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that
on 05th November, 2022, at 8.45 am, Jayalakshmipuram
Police registered a case in No.57 of 2022 against
Madappa, his sons, and others under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The complaint was
filed by Mr. Sanjay Angadi, son-in-law of the deceased
R.N. Kulkarni. The complainant alleged that Mr. Kulkarni,
a retired Assistant Director of Intelligence Bureau residing
in Mysuru, had a dispute with Madappa over the
construction of Madappa's house adjacent to Mr. Kulkarni's
residence. Mr. Kulkarni had requested Madappa and his
children to leave space between their properties.
Mr. Kulkarni pursued legal action and obtained an
injunction against Madappa's construction. Madappa
challenged this order in the High Court, offering to
demolish the house, if deemed illegal. The complaint
claims Mr. Kulkarni said Madappa and his children aimed
to harm him, citing an unverified police complaint. The
deceased-R.N. Kulkarni filed a complaint before the
Commissioner of Mysuru City Corporation and also filed
Writ Petition No.1947 of 2022 before the High Court of
Karnataka. However, on 02nd November, 2022, Mysuru
City Corporation passed an order for demolition of the
house illegally constructed by said Mr. Madappa.
2.1. It is also alleged that on 04th November, 2022,
at 5.00 pm, Mr. R.N. Kulkarni mentioned he was going for
a walk but didn't return. At 6.31 pm, his car driver
informed the complainant that Mr. Kulkarni had fallen and
passed away. The complainant went to Kamakshi
Hospital, confirming his father-in-law's demise. Police also
visited the hospital. The next day, after reviewing CCTV
footage at the accident site, the complainant concluded
that it was a murder. Hence complainant lodged a
complaint against Mr. Madappa, his children and others.
2.2. On 07th November, 2022, the petitioner was
arrested by the Respondent Police around charge-sheet
against the petitioner as accused No.1 and another by
name Mr. Varun as accused No.2 for offences punishable
under Sections 302, 120(B), 489, 201 read with Section
34 of Indian Penal Code. The respondent police allege
that accused No.1 conspired with accused No.2-Mr. Varun
to commit the murder of R.N. Kulkarni and dashed him by
Honda Accord car and committed his murder depicting it
as an accident. A charge-sheet came to be filed against
the petitioner and another for offences punishable under
Sections 302, 120(B), 489, 201 read with Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code. Petitioner had filed application under
Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the I
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru and the same
was rejected on 23rd March, 2023. Hence petitioners had
filed bail application in Criminal petition No.4428/2023 and
the same was rejected by this Court. Now, the petitioner
sought for bail on changed circumstances.
Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner
Sri. K.C.Pratheep:
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
Sri.K.C. Pratheep submits that the plain reading of the
complaint does not make prima facie case against the
petitioner for which he has been charged. The entire case
rests on circumstantial evidence which is to be proved at
the time of trial. Even as per the case of the prosecution
the deceased died on account of accident and further as
per column No.17 of the charge sheet. Accused No.1 who
drove the vehicle and dashed against the accused.
Therefore, at this stage, even accepting the case of
prosecution, the allegation of murder is against accused
No.1. Hence, further custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is not required. Accused No.2 having not all
participated in the alleged crime, only on the basis of
voluntary statement of accused No.1, the petitioner has
implicated as accused No.2 and there is no prima facie
material against him.
4. Further he submits that, the petitioner has
earlier approached this Court in Crl.P.No.3755/2023 which
came to be withdrawn and subsequently filed another
petition in Crl.P.No.4428/2023 and this Court by its order
dated 18.08.2023, dismissed the petition on merits.
Further, liberty was given to the petitioner to file
successive bail application if there is any positive of
changed circumstances. As such, this petition is filed on
medical grounds. The petitioner is in custody since
08.11.2022. The mother of the petitioner who is aged
about 58 years is suffering from DM+hypertension
uncontrolled CVA with seizure disorder and herpes zoster
and the patient is at severe stress, needs rest and
someone to look after at home as she had fallen more
than 4-5 times for seizure, she is put on treatment with
follow up. Since the condition of the mother of petitioner
is critical, the presence of the petitioner for limited time is
absolutely necessary as the father of the petitioner is
normally staying away from Mysore as the petitioner
father has agricultural lands at Chikkamalalli village,
Bettadapura Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk which is almost
70ksms away from Mysore. The mother of the petitioner
is residing in Mysore all the time. Therefore, in this time
of medical urgency, the presence of the petitioner with his
mother is absolutely necessary. To substantiate his
arguments, he has produced medical certificate dated
01.12.2023 issued by Dr.B.A.Shanthakumar, Senior
Specialist, Anesthesiologist, General Hospital, K.R.Nagar,
Mysore, with medical prescriptions, lab report issued by
Mallige Diagnostic Centre, medical bills, medication
prescription slip issued by JSS Hospital and RTC extracts
pertaining to land in Survey Nos.44/3, 18/5, 18/4, 17/3
and 17/2 of Hiremalali Village, Bettadapura Hobli,
Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore and SAS receipt issued by
Mysore City Corporation and Form No.1 issued by Mysore
City Corporation and assessment extract issued by the
Mysore City Corporation and also the decisions of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in
Crl.P.No.7575/2020 dated 12.07.2021 and
Crl.P.No.6212/2020 dated 08.01.2021. On all these
grounds, he sought to allow the bail application.
Submission of learned High Court Government Pleader
Sri. K. Nageshwarappa:
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader
submits that while disposing the bail application filed on
behalf of this petitioner in Crl.P.No.3684/2023 c/w.
Crl.P.No.4428/2023, this Court has held that there are
prima-facie materials to attract the alleged commission of
offence punishable under Section 302, 120B, 489, 201
read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
6. The petitioner has not made out any new
grounds/changed circumstances to file this subsequent bail
application. The medical certificate issued by
Dr.B.A.Shanthakumar, Senior Specialist, Anesthesiologist,
General Hospital, K.R.Nagar, Mysore reveals that the
petitioner's mother Smt.Pankaja M R is suffering from
DM+hypertension uncontrolled CVA with seizure disorder
and herpes zoster. This certificate is not issued by the
concerned Neurologist. The Senior Specialist,
Anesthesiologist is not a competent authority to issue this
medical certificate as to the health condition of the mother
of petitioner. The contents of medical certificate reveals
that the mother of the petitioner is not suffering from any
severe/serious disease. She has not admitted to the
hospital and she is taking treatment as outpatient. On this
ground, the petitioner is not entitled for any temporary
bail as sought for. The alleged commission of offence is
heinous in nature. If this petitioner is released on bail, it
will affect the society at large. On these grounds, he
sought for rejection of bail application.
7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the
following points would arise for my consideration:
(i) whether the petitioner/accused No.2 made out a
ground to release him on bail?
(ii) what order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: in the negative.
Point No.2: as per final order.
- 10 -
Regarding point No.1:
9. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in
Crl.P.No.3684/2023 c/w Crl.P.No.4428/2023 dated
18.08.2023 , this Court has observed that the prosecution
has successfully brought the prima facie case against
accused Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, this Court has
dismissed the petition with an observation that it is always
open to the petitioners to renew there request for grant of
bail with a successive bail application, if there is a positive
changed circumstances.
10. The main ground urged by the learned counsel
for petitioner is that the condition of mother of petitioner
is critical and the presence of petitioner with his mother is
absolutely necessary as father of the petitioner is normally
staying away from Mysore and petitioner's father has
agricultural lands at Chikkamalalli village, Bettadapura
Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk which is almost 70kms away from
Mysore.
- 11 -
11. A perusal of the medical certificate dated
01.12.2023 issued by Dr.B.A.Shanthakumar, Senior
Specialist, Anesthesiologist reveals that the mother of
petitioner is suffering from DM+hypertension uncontrolled
CVA with seizure disorder and herpes zoster and the
patient is at severe stress, needs rest and someone to look
after at home as she had fallen more than 4-5 times for
seizure, she is put on treatment with follow up. The
prescription issued by Shrihari Clinic reveals that the age
of mother of petitioner is 58 years as on 28.11.2023 and
she is not admitted to the hospital as inpatient and she is
taking treatment as outpatient. That there is no medical
record to show that the mother of petitioner is suffering
from severe/serious disease.
12. Considering the nature and gravity of offence
and also facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the
considered view that at this stage, the petitioner is not
entitled for grant of bail. If the petitioner is released on
bail, definitely it will affect the society at large.
- 12 -
13. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is not just and proper to grant bail to the
petitioner. Hence, I answer point No.1 in negative.
Regarding point No.2:
14. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The bail application filed by the petitioner under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSD
