Darshan vs State Of Karnataka
26 May, 2023
Bench: Hon’ble K.Natarajan
Introduction:
In a recent court ruling, the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru granted bail to the petitioner-accused No.1 in a high-profile murder case (Crime No. 200/2019). The accused was charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court’s decision, made under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) (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), has sparked debates and raised important questions about the delicate balance between medical needs and judicial considerations in granting bail.
Indian Penal Code:
| 302 | Punishment for murder |
| 34 | Acts done by several persons furthering the same intention |
Background of the Case:
According to the prosecution’s case, the accused, along with other individuals, was involved in a fatal altercation outside a military hotel. The incident resulted in the death of a person named Venkatesh, allegedly due to the accused stabbing him with a knife. The accused was arrested on September 12, 2019, and had been in custody for over three years and six months. During this period, the investigation was completed, and a charge sheet was filed.
Arguments Presented:
The petitioner’s counsel argued for the release of the accused on bail, citing multiple grounds. Firstly, they highlighted the lengthy duration of the petitioner’s custody, coupled with the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet. Additionally, they pointed out that one of the co-accused had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel emphasized the accused’s health condition, specifically his suffering from varicose veins, which required proper treatment to prevent potential complications such as impotency and loss of life.
On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent-State opposed the bail petition, contending that the accused was directly responsible for the death of the victim through stabbing.
Court’s Analysis and Decision:
After careful consideration of the arguments presented by both sides and perusal of the case records, the court arrived at its decision. It acknowledged that there were seven eye-witnesses, including the complainant, who could testify against the petitioner-accused. Although no test identification parade was conducted, the court noted the presence of eyewitnesses to the incident, apart from the complainant. However, it also took into account the petitioner’s medical condition and the substantial duration of his custody, exceeding three years and six months. Additionally, it observed that one of the co-accused had already been released on bail.
The Court’s Order:
In light of the petitioner’s medical condition, the lengthy period of custody, and the absence of any prejudice to the prosecution case, the court granted bail to the petitioner-accused No.1. The court directed the committal Court/trial Court to release the petitioner on bail, subject to specific conditions. These conditions included executing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, refraining from similar offenses, prompt trial participation, and obtaining prior permission from the trial Court before leaving its jurisdiction. The prosecution retained the right to apply for bail cancellation if any of the conditions were violated.
“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
