Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

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