Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case - ‘Sudden Quarrel’ and Lack of Intention to Kill”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 19th July 2023, In a significant ruling, the High Court of Karnataka granted bail to the three accused involved in a criminal case of fatal assault, highlighting that the incident arose from a “sudden quarrel” and lacked any apparent intention to cause death. The case, titled Criminal Petition No. 4377 of 2023, saw the accused charged under Sections 504, 448, 323, 324, 354, and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after the complainant succumbed to injuries sustained during the altercation.*

The court, presided over by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Nawaz, observed that there was no evidence suggesting the accused had intended to cause fatal injuries. The judgment noted that both parties had sustained injuries during the altercation, and a counter-complaint was also registered in connection with the same incident.

Justice Mohammad Nawaz, in his order, stated: “At this stage, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the accused to do away with the life of the deceased. However, it is a matter for trial.” He emphasized that the prosecution must establish the charges against the accused in a full-fledged trial.

The incident occurred on 2nd April 2023, when a group of three youths, allegedly drunk and playing loud music, created a disturbance on the road. The complainant confronted them, leading to a verbal altercation and physical assault. Both parties sustained injuries in the confrontation, and the complainant succumbed to pulmonary embolism resulting from multiple injuries on 5th April 2023.

The court granted bail to the accused – Mr. Anirudha Samantaray, Mr. Basudev Samantaray, and Mr. Abhishek Singh – subject to certain conditions, including executing a personal bond and providing sureties. The petitioners must also attend the concerned police station regularly and refrain from tampering with witnesses or committing any further offenses.

The High Court’s decision offers temporary relief to the accused, who have maintained their innocence and will now await the full trial to ascertain their legal fate.*

DATE OF DECISION: 19th July 2023

MR.ANIRUDHA SAMANTARAY vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA 

Latest Legal News