IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8158 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Anand Kumar @ Shankar @ Appu, S/o late Shridhar Aged about 21 years, R/at No.121, 5th Cross, Chaluvadipalya, Cottonpet, Bangalore-560 053.
(By Sri.M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate) AND:
State by Cottonpet Police Station Bangalore-560 053.
Represented by:
The State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka High Court Buildings Bangalore-560 001.
(By Sri.M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) ...Petitioner ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.195/2018 (C.C.No.27168/2018) of Cotton Pet Police Station, Bangalore City for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This present petition is filed by the petitioner- accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C to release him on bail in Crime No.195/2018 of Cotton Pete Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 22.07.2018 at about 6 pm at Dodda Mariyamma festival at Chaluvadipalya an oral altercation took place between accused-petitioner and deceased-Govindaraju with regard to throwing of water on the accused, as a result of which, accused and deceased have assaulted each other. Thereafter, they left the place. It is further alleged that on same day at about 7 pm when the accused-petitioner was walking on the 4th Cross Siddarathnagar, Cotton pet, the deceased-Govindaraju went there and quarreled with the accused. At that moment the accused went to his house and brought the knife with an intention to cause death of the Govindaraju-deceased and stabbed him with knife on his left ribs and back and caused grievous injuries. As a result of which, deceased-Govindaraju has succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the same, case has been registered and after completion of investigation, charge- sheet has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no intention or motive to cause death of the Govindaraju and alleged incident has taken place in a spur of the moment. He further submits that there are eye witnesses to the alleged incident and if the entire case of the prosecution is looked into, it may attract part-
1 and part-2 of Section 304 of IPC and it will not be amounting to murder as contemplated under Section 302 of IPC. He further submits that trial may take some more time and it is not necessary to detain the petitioner- accused in the judicial custody. Accused-petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State submits that earlier to the alleged incident, at about 6 pm there was a galata between the accused-petitioner and deceased-Govindaraju with regard to throwing the water and second incident took place at about 7 pm. Accused-petitioner with an intention to cause death of the Govindaraju, went to his house and brought the knife and assaulted. There are eye witnesses to the alleged incident and they have categorically stated about the act of the petitioner- accused. Further it is submitted that knife is also recovered at the instance of the accused. Post mortem report also corroborated with the statements of the witnesses. He further submits that the opinion expressed by the Doctor also clearly goes to show that the death was due to stab injury. There are ample materials to connect the accused to the alleged incident. On these grounds he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I carefully and consciously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records. There are several contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. Without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I feel that there are ample materials available to connect the accused to the alleged crime, under these facts and circumstances, it is not fit case to release him on bail. Accused-petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh bail application after examination of eye witnesses.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
SB/-
Sd/- JUDGE