High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 04 KAR CK 0084

N. Grisiha alias Giri and Others vs State

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 1 April 2010 · Citation: (2010) 3 KCCR 1956

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jawad Rahim, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 797 of 2010

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

7 paragraphs · 345 words

Jawad Rahim, J.—Petitioners/accused 2, 3 and 4 are facing charge for offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with one more juvenile offender. The case is registered in Crime No. 134 of 2009. Petitioners on their arrest, have sought bail.

2.

The prosecution case is based on the report submitted by one N. Vinay in which he revealed that on 20-12-2009, there was family cup cricket tournament at S.R.S. Stadium. The complainant along with his friend one Anand and Ashok (victim) had gone to witness the match. Thereafter, they proceeded on two motor-cycles and reached Ganesha Temple at Peenya. There they found Puneet a juvenile offender. Ashok having seen Puneet questioned him as to why he was forcibly taking away mobile sets from the college students. This infuriated Puneet to slap Ashok questioning his right to advice him. When Anand intervened, Puneet made attempt on him with a knife but he evaded the assault. At that moment, petitioners caught hold of Ashok, immobilised him to facilitate Puneet to assault. Puneet stabbed Ashok on the left portion of the chest, caused injury which proved homicidal and he died.

3.

Petitioners after arrest are in judicial custody. Learned Counsel appearing on their behalf urges two aspects to be considered, firstly that no overt act is attributed to petitioners and secondly, that Puneet-accused 1 due to whose assault the victim died, has been admitted to bail. Both these contentions must necessarily fail for the following reasons:

(a) As far as Puneet is concerned, he is shown to be a juvenile offender and he has been dealt with by the juvenile Court. Therefore, grant of bail to him is of no consequence to the case of petitioners

(b) As far as petitioners are concerned, three of them immobilised Ashok facilitating Puneet to cause the homicidal injury. This spells out sharing of common intention to do away with the life of victim Ashok.

4.

In the circumstances, I do not find that petitioners have made out any case to admit them to bail.

The petition is rejected.