The bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar while dealing with an appeal filed by the appellants challenging the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge ruled out that bail can’t be granted merely because the wife of the accused is pregnant and due for delivery.
The appellant was registered for the offences punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 302, 504, 506 read with Section 149 IPC and under Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
In the case in hand, the accused person assaulted the complainant’s brother and commitment murder by assault using rod, stick and stones. The question before the bench was
Whether the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge needs interference or not?
The bench stated that the presence of the accused no. 29 and 31 is revealed from the investigation paper, however, what their exact role, is the matter of investigation and final report.
It is early to say that the accused no. 29 was not present on the spot of incident merely because he attended a criminal case in the court situated at a distance of 40 k.m. from the place of the incident.
The Karnataka High Court stated that “merely because the wife of the accused is pregnant and her due date of delivery is 06.11.2022 as per medical records, is not a ground for grant of bail at this stage when the investigation is in progress.”
The petition was dismissed by the Court in the view of the discussion above.
Case Title: Gurunagouda v. The State of Karnataka
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100476 OF 2022
Counsel for the appellant: Sri T.R. Patil
Counsel for the respondent: Sri Prashanth V. Mogali
0 Comments