IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2360 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Akshay Kumar @ Kiran S/o Nagaraja, Aged about 23 years, R/a No.716, 1st main, 2nd Cross, Mesthri Ramaiah Complex, Roopena Agrahara, Bengaluru – 560068.
(By Sri.Anees Ali Khan, Advocate) AND:
State by Electronic City Police Station, Bengaluru.
Represented by The State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP) ...Petitioner ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.233/2016 of Electronic City Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 145, 146, 307, 302, 149, 120(B) of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.233/2016 (S.C.No.136/2016) of Electronic City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 145, 146, 307, 302 and 120(b) read with 149 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The facts of the case are that one Nagaraju and deceased Shivaprasad were friends. When they were together proceeding on the fateful day, while purchasing the cigarettes, the accused persons came in a car and assaulted on the back of the deceased with knife. On seeing the same, Nagaraju-complainant started to run in the field and when he returned back, he saw the accused assaulting the deceased. He has given a statement mentioning the name of the petitioner and on the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused No.4 is innocent and has not committed any offence. Though he has filed an earlier application before this Court but at that time, the material facts have not been brought to the notice of this Court. It is his further submission that CW-1 and CW-5 are the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and already they have been examined before the Court below and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is his further submission that earlier under similar facts and circumstances this Court has granted bail to accused Nos.8, 9 and 11. On the ground of parity, the petitioner/accused No.4 is also entitled to be released on bail. It is his further submission that the petitioner/accused No.4 stabbed on the back of the deceased and it is accused No.1, who assaulted with long caused injuries on head and other parts of the body. Even the Post Mortem Report goes to show that the deceased died due to chop injuries sustained on head. It is his further submission that since 03.05.2016 he is languishing in jail and already charge sheet has been filed and material witnesses have also not supported the prosecution evidence. He is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and release the petitioner/accused No.4 on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused No.4 has assaulted the deceased with knife on his back and the said knife is also recovered at the instance of accused No.4 by drawing mahazar. There are eye- witness to the alleged incident. If the petitioner/accused No.4 is enlarged on bail, he may tamer with the prosecution evidence and he may not be available for trial and on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the records made available CW-1 has been examined as PW-1 and CW-5 has been examined as PW-3 before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru rural district, Bengaluru and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and even the records indicates the facts that already accused Nos.8, 9 and 11 have been enlarged on bail by this Court. As could be seen from the Post Mortem Report that the deceased has sustained as many as 27 injuries and injury No.10 is stabbed injury on the back of right side of the chest and other injuries are the chop injuries which have been caused with the lethal weapons. As per the opinion expressed by the Doctor in the Post Mortem Report death is due to multiple chop injuries sustained to head.
8. Keeping in view of the above said facts and circumstances, I feel that if by imposing some stringent conditions if the petitioner/accused No.4 is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
9. In that light, petition is allowed and the accused/petitioner No. 4 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No. 233/2016 (S.C.No.136/2016) of Electronic City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 145, 146, 307, 302 and 120(b) read with 149 of IPC with following conditions:-
1) Accused/Petitioner No.4 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2) He shall not indulge in similar type of activities during the pending of the case. If he again involves, the respondent are at liberty for applying for cancellation of bail.
3) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
4) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
5) He shall be regular in attending the trial Court proceedings.
6) He shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 1st of every month before the concerned police station, till the trial is concluded.
Sd/- JUDGE NS