“Analyzing the Grant of Bail in the Srirangapatna Murder Case: A Closer Look at Accused No. 3’s Petition”
Sri Jai Kumar H J vs State Of Karnataka
22 May, 2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mohammad Nawaz
In a recent legal development, the High Court has allowed the petition filed by Accused No. 3 under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 46/2022 registered at the Srirangapatna Police Station. The accused is charged with an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pertaining to the murder of Sagar K M on the night of March 3rd and 4th, 2022. This blog delves into the details of the case and analyzes the grounds on which the bail was granted to Accused No. 3.
Background of the Case:
The case was initiated based on a complaint lodged by Mahadevaprasad K S, the father of the deceased. The complainant alleged that unknown persons were involved in the murder of his son, Sagar K M. The charge sheet filed by the prosecution named five accused persons, charging them with offences under Sections 143, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code).
|Cr.P.C||439||A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.|
|IPC||143||Punishment for members of an unlawful assemble|
|148||Punishment for whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death|
|341||Punishment for wrongful restraint|
|302||Punishment for murder|
|149||Punishment for offence committed by members of an unlawful assembly in pursuance of a common objective|
The Prosecution’s Allegations:
The prosecution contended that the accused, driven by previous enmity, formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons on the night of March 3rd, 2022. It was alleged that the accused assaulted the victim indiscriminately, resulting in his brutal murder. However, it is worth noting that the statements of material witnesses (CWs 2 to 4) do not indicate that they witnessed the actual assault by the accused.
The Bail Petition of Accused No. 3:
Accused No. 3, through his counsel, filed a bail petition, asserting that other co-accused individuals had already been granted bail. The petitioner’s counsel presented copies of bail orders issued by the Co-ordinate Benches of the Court in favor of Accused No. 1, Accused Nos. 2 and 4, and an order from the Sessions Judge granting bail to Accused No. 5. The petitioner argued that his case was not distinguishable from those of the other accused, and thus, he should be granted bail on the ground of parity.
Granting Bail to Accused No. 3:
After careful consideration of the arguments presented, the court allowed the bail petition of Accused No. 3, subject to certain conditions. The conditions imposed include executing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two sureties of the same amount, providing proof of residential address, refraining from tampering with prosecution witnesses or evidence, not leaving the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission, appearing regularly before the trial court on all hearing dates, and abstaining from engaging in any criminal activities.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The grant of bail to Accused No. 3 in the Srirangapatna murder case raises several important considerations. The court examined the statements of the material witnesses, which failed to establish the direct involvement of the accused in the assault leading to the victim’s death. Additionally, the court took into account the fact that other co-accused individuals had already been granted bail, thereby emphasizing the principle of parity.
It is important to note that the granting of bail does not imply the accused’s innocence; rather, it is a procedural safeguard ensuring their release from custody during the trial. The conditions imposed by the court aim to ensure the accused’s presence, prevent interference with the case, and maintain public safety.
This case serves as an example of the judicial process at work, where bail decisions are made based on a careful evaluation of the available evidence, legal precedents, and individual circumstances. As the trial proceeds, the court will continue to examine the evidence and make decisions based on its merit.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREEYA S SHEKAR