Karnataka High Court: While deciding a criminal petition filed under Section 439 of CrPC praying to release the petitioner on bail, a Single Judge Bench of N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. held that all the facts and circumstances have to be looked into and the stay of the accused in judicial custody alone could not be a yard stick to grant the bail.
The petitioner was seeking bail in a criminal case filed for offences punishable under Sections 448, 302 and 324 of IPC. It was alleged that the petitioner entered the house of the complainant-his brother, and attacked the deceased-his sister-in-law, with a knife. In the act he also injured the complainant and his son. The deceased succumbed to the injuries.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was implicated in the case unnecessarily. The learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the application and submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner was heinous in nature.
The High Court perused the application and other material on record and reached to the conclusion that all the facts were not stated in the bail application and in the context and circumstances of the case, the accused staying in judicial custody could not be the yardstick to grant the relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed and the bail was denied. [Ramanna v. The State, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 2360, order dated 21.09.2017]
