High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri.Krishna @ Korangu vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri.Krishna @ Korangu vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE-

DATED nus THE 23*" om! 05 AUGUST 2910-1' 

BEFORE :

THE i-lON'Bi.£ MILJUSTICE; N.ANANbA' " 57.1.  '

 

Cr|.P.NQ..§8Q4[ 291g 1

Between :

Krishna @ Korangop'  . 
Son of late Subramani' Naidug 
Aged 42 years;   'V ' 
Resident of N'o_.9Q8_, g   V'
11*" A Cross, _\fy.a1ikaya_l,  "  "
Bangalore. " C  

.. Petitioner

( By Sri 'Toum*y% Sebastiain',~~.:Si=iC-ounsei, )

   

  i:a'j.a'g'e,HCGP )

 _'"'l;his"i'iCriminaliyyfietition is filed under section 439 of
'-.C'i-.i?>;C., -.pray«i..ng~__ to enlarge the petitioner on bail in

S~.C.~islo.i1.20.[.10j~.p_ending on the file of the Fast Track
(S'ess'i--o'ns)' ~'."_(-Zo'i:irt-VH1, Bangalore in Cr.No.186/O9 of
Yelai~--..anl<a~~ New Town P.S., Bangalore City, which IS

 'yregisteredgfor the offences punishable under Sections 143,
 14,7, 14'8,__120(B), 307, 302 r/w. Section 149 of IPC.

it = , These Criminal Petitions coming on for orders this day,

 Court made the following :



ORDER

The petitioner in both the cases is common._,»~..VH-eSi~i.s

arrayed as accused No.13 in Crime

Yeiahanka New Town Police Station,__.w.hi__ch is”re’g.i}3teVred”for” ”

the offences punishable under SeE:tioij_’scA.:V1<l'3.,"-1477,'V:"1.48::_,_c

120(3), 307, 302, 109, 201 r/w; se.;tiori'-149

The petitioner is NoV."1"in Crime
No.18S/2010 of iYia|leshyyVa'i'a_nlS"."_Policg'"ggation, which is
registered for theéiojffenceis Sections 364–A,

384, SO6–B oi "

2. have’he’a:rd Sebastian, learned Senior

Counsel a’p.pea_rin’g_ petitioner and the learned

.–vV.§3over’ri,n’lVe’nt Adii/o~cavt_e appearing for the State and I have

tai<.evn«.ti1ro~ugh the investigation records.

A'–.,,The.-inijestigation records reveal that, this petitioner is

a»rrayed"as1'a conspirator in Crime No.186/2009. The incident

A crinie occurred on 27.7.2009. The iearned Senior Counsel

four; the petitioner submitted that the investigation records do

rejected on 1.6.2009. He had stayed away from the process

of iaw with impunity. As on the date of occurrenc~e_:inf'-tyhe

instant case i.e., on 27.7.2009, petitioner was .

4. The statements of cws.34-ianci«35 i.(\ioi;«!d0V’reveal7«thVlat

there was a meeting of accused 12-._.at

Daba on 25.7.2009. These statejmentsyh the’

name of accused No.13,-‘ jthe haés”fi’ied’V: the case
against the petitioner onthe’ statements
made by reveal that
after the date No.13 had provided
money th’e.V:afo’resa’i’dV§accused to enabie them
to absco-n€d.«’. ‘The’V:.cjonfes:sian.al.statement made by the co»

accused in term’s»of– Se_cti’o”n 25 of the Indian Evidence Act,

‘–:y872..”‘:’is_-not».admlilssibievduring triai. Section 25 of the indian

“‘iE§v’ide”r’ice”Act. “readys as under :

09 ‘*-..accused of any offence.”

._ n:_’2’§ : Confession to police officer not
A–.__to be or-oved.~ No confession made to a police

officer shall be proved as against a person

g\} .

However, there is no bar for the investigation officer to

make use of confessional statement for further investi§’a.ti’o.n.

The accused who had been on medical

No.474/2005, shouid have surren*de–red e4so_o’nir%i1r~arte£%;, his if

request for extension of bail was réjVe<itedlV

was arrested on 3o.8.2oo9n,:i'n.V%%crime»sx1§.~s18':2/'zooms off

Hanumanthanagar Police.' Sta&tii.o–=;l:r"s_:'* "The 'a"ccu.se.d§ by not
surrendering before the HCourt"*afi;er vrrlreejection of request
for extension of that he
could away €.from_ V ofil ' impu nlty. Besides

four cases _are'._–vp..endinq"=.a§gair:st the accused. In the
circurnstanc_e's,% the_rQ-.l:.iis n"o.._':c'e'rtainty that the accused wouid

make ;himAself:a».:aiI'ab|eduring trial if he is released on bail.

flTl1eVrVe'fore:;fhé cannot be released .on bail.

Ivniiljrilrtivinal Petition l\io.185/2010 the investigation

'.record's..do.. not make out a prima facie case against the

V' "..pvetitio–neri He is invoived in a heinous offence in the

4"=.___'*~l5'cor'inected Criminal Petition No.3804/2010, for the reasons

7\s. .

“‘bk/ ”

stated Criminal Petition No.3804/2010, the petitionerpannot

be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, both the petitions are

learned trial Judge shall expedite the “a_ncl’A

shall c0~0perate for expeditious dec;5i’0n”af thee.c~’a5’e’; 2

sax: