Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3738 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3738 of 1999)
Petitioner: Kumar
Respondent: State of Karnataka
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3738 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3738 of 1999)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 21, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal procedure code, 1973
Section 437, 439 with Indian Panel Code 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 149 – Bail – Accused charged with offences of murder – Death taking place after several days of incident – Co-accused granted bail – Rejection of bail of accused by High Court – If justified. Held in view of factual circumstances and also the fact that the accused has been in custody for long time since 1998 he is enti-tled to be released on bail.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Through an affidavit filed by the appellant’s father we are told that appellant had been taken into custody in connection with this case on 28.8.1998. He is now involved in an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. along with other accused. As the bail prayed for him has been rejected by the High Court, he is before us by special leave.
3. Learned counsel contends that though the role attributed to this appellant is that he gave a blow with a lathi on the head, death of deceased was not due to that injury. It was pointed out that death of the deceased occurred several days after the date of incident. We are also told that another accused arraigned along with him (P. Kumara) has been released on bail by the impugned order on the premise that he has no specific role in the occurrence. Even considering the role attributed to the appellant we bear in mind the fact that death of the deceased occurred several days after the incident. We think that on the facts of this case and in view of the fact that appellant has been in custody for a long time from 28.8.1998 he can be released on bail now. We therefore, order him to be released on bail on his exe-cuting a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.
4. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. Through an affidavit filed by the appellant’s father we are told that appellant had been taken into custody in connection with this case on 28.8.1998. He is now involved in an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. along with other accused. As the bail prayed for him has been rejected by the High Court, he is before us by special leave.
3. Learned counsel contends that though the role attributed to this appellant is that he gave a blow with a lathi on the head, death of deceased was not due to that injury. It was pointed out that death of the deceased occurred several days after the date of incident. We are also told that another accused arraigned along with him (P. Kumara) has been released on bail by the impugned order on the premise that he has no specific role in the occurrence. Even considering the role attributed to the appellant we bear in mind the fact that death of the deceased occurred several days after the incident. We think that on the facts of this case and in view of the fact that appellant has been in custody for a long time from 28.8.1998 he can be released on bail now. We therefore, order him to be released on bail on his exe-cuting a bond with two solvent sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.
4. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
