{"id":165274,"date":"2017-10-26T13:38:48","date_gmt":"2017-10-26T08:08:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=165274"},"modified":"2017-10-26T13:42:49","modified_gmt":"2017-10-26T08:12:49","slug":"bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Bail petition rejected in light of S. 106 of the Evidence Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Karnataka High Court:<\/strong> A Single Judge Bench of Budihal R.B., J. rejected a criminal petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> holding that certain facts were exclusively within the knowledge of the petitioner and as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872<\/a> the burden was on him to prove his case.
\nThe petitioner was the accused in a criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no prima facie case against the petitioner. According to him, the prosecution material only showed that the petitioner and the deceased (a couple) both consumed poison which resulted in the death of the deceased, however the life of the petitioner was saved. But a case under Section 302 was not made out.
\nThe High Court perused all the material on record and was of the opinion that as per the post-mortem report the cause of death was blunt force impact on the head and the neck of the deceased. The Court observed that there was no eyewitness to the incident and whatever happened inside the room between the couple was within exclusive knowledge of the accused. Section 106 of the Evidence Act laid the burden on the petitioner, of proving the facts which were exclusively in the knowledge of the petitioner which he may do at the appropriate stage.\u00a0 Considering all the facts and the situation, the Court held that it was not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the bail petition was rejected. [Ravi v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 4263 of 2017, order dated 6.10.2017]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Budihal R.B., J. rejected a criminal petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[24244,24254],"class_list":["post-165274","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-bail-petition","tag-s-106-of-evidence-act"],"yoast_head":"\nBail petition rejected in light of S. 106 of the Evidence Act | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bail petition rejected in light of S. 106 of the Evidence Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Budihal R.B., J. rejected a criminal petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-10-26T08:08:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-26T08:12:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/IMG_3499-e1487871967209.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2017\\\/10\\\/26\\\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2017\\\/10\\\/26\\\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Saba\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"headline\":\"Bail petition rejected in light of S. 106 of the Evidence Act\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-10-26T08:08:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-26T08:12:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2017\\\/10\\\/26\\\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":277,\"commentCount\":0,\"keywords\":[\"Bail petition\",\"S. 106 of Evidence Act\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2017\\\/10\\\/26\\\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2017\\\/10\\\/26\\\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2017\\\/10\\\/26\\\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\\\/\",\"name\":\"Bail petition rejected in light of S. 106 of the Evidence Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-10-26T08:08:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-26T08:12:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2017\\\/10\\\/26\\\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2017\\\/10\\\/26\\\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2017\\\/10\\\/26\\\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bail petition rejected in light of S. 106 of the Evidence Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_2\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bail petition rejected in light of S. 106 of the Evidence Act | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bail petition rejected in light of S. 106 of the Evidence Act","og_description":"Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Budihal R.B., J. rejected a criminal petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2017-10-26T08:08:48+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-26T08:12:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/IMG_3499-e1487871967209.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\/"},"author":{"name":"Saba","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"headline":"Bail petition rejected in light of S. 106 of the Evidence Act","datePublished":"2017-10-26T08:08:48+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-26T08:12:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\/"},"wordCount":277,"commentCount":0,"keywords":["Bail petition","S. 106 of Evidence Act"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\/","name":"Bail petition rejected in light of S. 106 of the Evidence Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-10-26T08:08:48+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-26T08:12:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/10\/26\/bail-petition-rejected-light-s-106-evidence-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bail petition rejected in light of S. 106 of the Evidence Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":222716,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/30\/kar-hc-individuals-freedom-cannot-be-curtailed-for-indefinite-period-especially-when-his-guilt-is-not-proven\/","url_meta":{"origin":165274,"position":0},"title":"Kar HC | Individual\u2019s freedom cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his guilt is not proven\u00a0","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 30, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. while allowing the petitioner-accused\u2019s petition for grant of bail, laid down certain conditions such as a sum of one lakh rupees to be paid and he shall appear before the court on all the dates of hearing and shall not tamper with the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":195998,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/05\/14\/bail-denied-in-light-of-suppression-of-facts\/","url_meta":{"origin":165274,"position":1},"title":"Bail denied in light of suppression of facts","author":"Saba","date":"May 14, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. decided a criminal petition filed under Section 439 of CrPC, wherein the Court declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the ground that, inter alia, the petitioner suppressed facts while filing the present petition. The petitioner\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":185504,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/02\/bail-denied-due-pendency-recording-evidence-complainant-witnesses\/","url_meta":{"origin":165274,"position":2},"title":"Bail denied due to pendency of recording of evidence of the complainant witnesses","author":"Saba","date":"February 2, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Budihal R.B., J., decided a criminal petition filed under Section 439 of CrPC, wherein bail was denied to the petitioner-accused in light of the fact that evidence of complainant witnesses was yet to be recorded. The petitioner was co-accused in a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":212404,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/26\/ori-hc-substantive-evidence-of-witnesses-recorded-in-court-cannot-by-itself-be-the-basis-of-bail-petition\/","url_meta":{"origin":165274,"position":3},"title":"Ori HC | Substantive evidence of witnesses recorded in court cannot by itself be the basis of bail petition","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 26, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: The Bench of Dr A.K. Mishra, J., dismissed an application filed under Section 439 CrPC for a successive bail to release the petitioner. The earlier bail petition was rejected considering the nature and gravity of accusations and stage of trial in a case involving tender fixing. Mr\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":218906,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/08\/31\/ph-hc-anticipatory-bail-passed-in-a-suicide-case-where-prima-facie-the-case-was-of-depression\/","url_meta":{"origin":165274,"position":4},"title":"P&H HC | Anticipatory bail passed in a suicide case where prima facie the case was of depression","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 31, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. allowed the anticipatory bail petition in a suicide case.\u00a0 A petition was filed for the grant of anticipatory bail for the FIR registered for the offence committed under Section 365 of the Penal Code.\u00a0 The brief facts of the case were\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":155154,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/09\/08\/karnataka-hc-rejects-bail-application-filed-before-recording-of-victims-statement-as-mandated-under-s-351-of-pocso\/","url_meta":{"origin":165274,"position":5},"title":"Karnataka HC rejects bail application filed before recording of victim’s statement as mandated under S. 35(1) of POCSO","author":"Saba","date":"September 8, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a Criminal Petition filed under Section 439 of CrPC, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in a criminal case registered for offences punishable under S. 354A of IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, a Single Judge Bench of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165274","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=165274"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165274\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165274"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165274"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165274"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}