A City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has granted regular bail to Srinivasmurthy, also known as Chinnu, in connection with a 2019 murder case registered at the Vidyaranyapura Police Station. The order, delivered by Sri Jai Shankar, the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, comes after the accused was re-arrested for failing to appear before the court for nearly two years. The court accepted the defense’s plea that the accused’s absence was not intentional but due to a prolonged battle with jaundice.
Srinivasmurthy is the primary accused in S.C.No.1249/2019, which arose from Crime Number 46/2019. He stands charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which pertains to the punishment for murder.
The Incident and Legal Timeline
The prosecution’s case dates back to the night of April 1, 2019. It is alleged that between 10:45 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., Srinivasmurthy visited the residence of the deceased, Deviprasad alias Prathap. A heated argument reportedly broke out regarding money that the accused had given to Deviprasad to purchase alcohol. In the ensuing physical altercation, Srinivasmurthy allegedly assaulted Deviprasad with a piece of wood before fleeing the scene. The victim was rushed to a nearby hospital but succumbed to his injuries the following day, April 2, 2019.
The legal journey of the accused has been turbulent. He was initially granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in February 2020 and was released in March 2020. However, his subsequent court appearances were inconsistent. Following the COVID-19 pandemic and the reopening of courts, he failed to appear, leading to the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW). He was arrested again in April 2021, granted bail for a second time in Crl.Misc.No.6760/2021, and released in February 2022. He vanished once more after March 11, 2022, leading to his third arrest on January 26, 2024.
Defense Arguments: Health Crisis and Ayurvedic Treatment
Represented by Advocate Jagadeesh H., the petitioner argued that his client had no intention of fleeing from justice. The defense contended that Srinivasmurthy had been suffering from a severe case of jaundice for the past two years and was undergoing Ayurvedic treatment, which rendered him physically incapable of attending court proceedings.
The defense further highlighted that Srinivasmurthy is a daily-wage laborer (coolie) and the sole breadwinner for his elderly parents. It was argued that his continued detention would result in extreme hardship for his family and that, since the investigation by the Vidyaranyapura Police was already complete and a charge sheet filed, there was no necessity for further custodial detention.
Prosecution Opposes Bail Over Absconding History
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application, emphasizing the gravity of the offense. The state argued that the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code carry the highest penalties—death or imprisonment for life. The prosecution pointed out that the accused has a track record of absconding and violating bail conditions, suggesting that if released again, he would likely disappear or attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses.
The Court’s Observations and Ruling
Judge Jai Shankar, while evaluating the rival contentions, noted that the accused had previously been granted bail by the High Court. While acknowledging the history of non-appearance, the court took a compassionate view of the medical explanation provided by the defense regarding the jaundice treatment.
The court observed that the primary purpose of bail is to ensure the presence of the accused during trial and that the prosecution’s fears of witness tampering or flight risk could be managed through stringent conditions. Consequently, the court answered the point in the affirmative, granting the regular bail.
Strict Conditions for Release
The court allowed the petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, subject to the following conditions:
The petitioner must execute a personal bond for 1,00,000 rupees with two sureties of the same amount. He is mandated to appear before the court regularly for every hearing without fail. He is strictly prohibited from threatening, alluring, or contacting the prosecution witnesses in any manner. Furthermore, he must not involve himself in any other criminal activities and is restricted from leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior written permission.
The judge warned that any violation of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of the bail. With the investigation complete, the case will now proceed toward the trial stage to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused regarding the death of Deviprasad.