IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5768/2018 BETWEEN :
Arunkumar K.H.
S/o late Hanumanthappa Aged about 20 years Coolie Work, R/at Kempathimmanahalli Village Kundana Hobli, Davanahalli Taluk Bengaluru Rural District-562 110.
(By Sri M. Munikrishna, Advocate & Sri C. Gangadhara, Advocate) AND :
State by Vishwanthapura P.S. Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) … Petitioner … Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.248/2017 (S.C.No.15018/2018) of Vishwanathapura Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 504, 302 and 114 of Indian Penal Code This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in SC.No.15018/2018, on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli arising out of Crime No.248/2017 of Viswanathapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. One Smt.Sunitha is the complainant in this case and Smt. Jayamma @ Jayashri is the deceased. Perusing the complaint averments the allegations in brief are that the complainant took Smt.Jayamma @ Jayashree for the purpose of attending the pooja and accordingly on 18.12.2017 complainant and Jayamma @ Jayashree went to Yelahanka and at about 3.00 p.m., they started to do pooja in front of one house. At that time, one woman from the said house came outside and started to enquire that who are they and what they are doing in front of their house, when they told that they perform the pooja the said woman started to abuse them in filthy language. At that time the deceased Jayamma kept quiet, she has not spoken any words and performing pooja and a boy started the lorry which was parked nearby place. Thereafterwards he stopped and went inside the house and he was telling over the phone and then the said boy came outside and again he started lorry and at about 3.30 p.m., all of a sudden he took the lorry behind and it was run over Smt. Jayamma @ Jayashree, with an intention to commit her murder. Thereafterwards he took the lorry from site and even warned the complainant that if she will not leave the place, he will run over the lorry on the complainant also.
Smt. Jayamma sustained injuries to her body and she expired on the spot itself. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506 R/w 34 of IPC.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already the charge sheet has been filed and there are no incriminating materials to connect the petitioner to the alleged crime. The complaint is not disclosing the name of the petitioner but it discloses that an unknown person came and started the lorry and took it reverse and caused the injuries to the deceased. He further submitted that the petitioner is not required for further investigation or interrogation. He further submitted that already accused No.2 has been released on bail and on the ground of parity the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail.He further submitted that petitioner is having the permanent residence and he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition by granting bail to the petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the deceased is the step mother of accused No.1 and accused No.2 is the second wife of Hanumanthappa. The lorry which is involved in the alleged crime is standing in the name of the father of accused No.1. There are eye witnesses to the alleged incident in question. CWs.1 to 6 have categorically stated about the act of the petitioner that he took the lorry reverse and run over on the deceased with an intention to commit her murder. There is ample material to connect accused No.1-petitioner to the alleged crime that he has been involved in a case which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On these grounds she prayed 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. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other material, it indicates that the petitioner is the step son of the deceased and the relationship was also existing. Even as could be seen from the records there are eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the petitioner intentionally took the lorry on reverse and run over the deceased and thereby caused the death of the deceased. The said act of the petitioner appears to be an intentional one to cause the death of the deceased. The ground of parity does not come to rescue of the petitioner. Accused No.2 was standing by the side and only she was instigating the petitioner to do away the life of the deceased. Under such circumstances, the bail has been granted to her. When the alleged offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and there is ample material as against the petitioner, I feel that this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner.
Hence, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-