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

42 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.