Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Arun Kumar A vs State By Parappan Agrahara P

High Court Of Karnataka|07 March, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8922/2018 Between:
Arun Kumar A S/o Late Puttappa @ Annayappa, Aged about 21 years, R/at 1st Cross, 3rd Main, Near Aralikatte, Chudasandra, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 560099. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Sirajuddin Ahmed, Advocate) And:
State by Parappan Agrahara P.S Rep by HCGP Karnataka, High Court, Bengaluru – 560001. ... Respondent (By Sri. M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.314/2018 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 read with 34 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 the petitioner/accused No.6 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking release him on bail in Crime No.314/2018 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 302 read with 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The genesis of the complaint are that near the house of the complainant, there was a water point and he was engaged in the service of water supply. It is alleged in the complaint that on 26.09.2018 at about 9.30 p.m. the deceased came shouting by name Lokeshahanna. When the complainant came out, he saw that there were injuries near his neck and the blood was oozing. The complainant asked him what had happened, he stated that he was assaulted with knife and fell down on the ground. Immediately, the said injured was taken to Blossom Hospital, from there to St.John’s Hospital where the Doctor declared that the said person was brought dead. It is revealed during the course of investigation that because of the earlier enmity, the accused persons conspired and hatched a plan and when the deceased was going in the tractor, he was assaulted and caused to death.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/accused No.6 was not at all present at the place of incident. The only allegation that has been made as against the petitioner/accused No.6 is that he is conspired with other accused persons. As such, he has been apprehended and now, he is in custody. He further submits that the only allegation which has been made is that petitioner/accused No.6 has given shelter to the accused persons after the murder. Already charge sheet has been filed. There are no overt act alleged as against the petitioner/accused No.6 and no recovery of any incriminating material has been done at the instance of the petitioner/accused No.6. He further submitted that petitioner/accused No.6 is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and also ready to offer surety. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.6 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused No.6 along with other accused persons had constituted unlawful assembly and they conspired and thereafter, they hatched a plan. The petitioner/accused No.6 also accompanied with the other accused persons and thereafter, they have caused the death of the deceased by stabbing with knife, there is material as against the petitioner/accused No.6 and other accused persons and even the charge sheet is also filed under Section 120B that the petitioner/accused No.6 is also equally liable to be punished as that of the accused No.1. He further submitted that if he is released on bail, he may abscond and may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint and other material the alleged incident has taken place on 26.09.2018 and at that time, accused No.1 was waiting to the deceased and when deceased came on a tractor, immediately the accused No.1 who assaulted with knife and caused the grievous injuries. No where in the complaint and other material, it has been specified as to what is the overt act of the petitioner/accused No.6. There are no specific overt act are found, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only allegations which has been made as against the petitioner/accused No.6 is that he has given a shelter after the murder and he has also conspired with the other accused persons. Whether the petitioner/accused No.6 has conspired or given a shelter? is the matter which has to be considered and appreciated at the time of trial. When there are no other serious overt act alleged against the petitioner/accused No.6 for causing death of the deceased, under such circumstances, I feel that by imposing stringent conditions, if the petitioner/accused No.6 is released on bail, is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In that light, petition is allowed and the Petitioner/accused No.6 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.314/2018 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:-
1. Petitioner/accused No.6 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall be regular in attending the trial till the trial is concluded.
3. He shall not tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner directly or indirectly and shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities.
4. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
5. He shall mark his attendance once in a month between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police.
SD/- JUDGE NBM
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Arun Kumar A vs State By Parappan Agrahara P

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
07 March, 2019
Judges
  • B A Patil