High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 04 KAR CK 0080

Amanulla @ Amman, S/o. late Soudagar vs The State of Karnataka by Madivala Police Station, Bengaluru.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 19 April 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
John Michael Cunha
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
1371 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 356 words
1.

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

The petitioner is the sole accused against whom the charge sheet is laid for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent.

3.

The learned HCGP has not filed any written statement of objection inspite of granting sufficient time.

However, the learned HCGP has opposed the granting of bail to the petitioner.

4.

The deceased was a physically challenged person. He was running a mobile phone shop at Madivala. The accused was frequently visiting the shop of the deceased and was getting free currency to his mobile phone. Previous to the incident, the deceased is stated to have refused to oblige the requirements of the accused and hence the accused with an ill-intention to kill the deceased, on 05.03.2016 at about 9.30 pm came near the shop of the deceased. When the deceased came out of the shop at about 10.00 pm and was about to start his three wheeler, the accused all of a sudden pounced on the deceased and assaulted him with a knife and stabbed at his chest, both the ribs and also at his right knee and fled away.

5.

The accused was arrested on 07.03.2016.

On the basis of voluntary statement of the accused, the chopper used for the commission of the offence is recovered during the course of investigation. The prosecution has examined material witnesses. Among them, CW-13, 14 and 18 are cited as eye witnesses. The circumstance brought on record clearly indicates that it was a premeditated murder. The manner in which the accused has materialized his threats by assaulting the accused and causing his instantaneous death does not call for the relief of bail to the petitioner at this stage.

6.

Having regard to the gravity of the charges and the manner in which the offence has been committed, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is likelihood of the petitioner either absconding or threatening the prosecution witnesses and thereby prejudicing the case of the prosecution. Hence, the petition is dismissed.