IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8993/2018 BETWEEN :
Ashok S/o Doddegowda Aged about 24 years R/at No.10/2, 7th Cross Opp: Isma School, Near Manjunatha Medicals Rudrappa Garden, Vittalnagara, Chamarajpet Bengaluru-560 018.
… Petitioner (By Sri R.V.Shivananda Reddy, Advocate) AND :
State of Karnataka by Byatarayanapura Police Station Bengaluru-560 026, Represented by Government Pleader High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) … Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.81/2018 (S.C. No.1238/2018) of Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 450, 302, 397 and 201 r/w. Section 34 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.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in SC.No.1238/2018 on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH.-67) at Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.81/2018 of Byatarayanapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 450, 302, 397, 201 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. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is working as a coolie. He had three female children. On 1.3.2018 at about 8.00 a.m., the complainant was curing the house which was being constructed opposite to the house. At that time, the complainant’s son-in-law came and told the complainant that he is going for work. Thereafter his daughter Kavitha went to leave her children to school. At about 9.15 a.m., Kavitha called the complainant to have food for which he told that he would come afterwards. Thereafter, when the complainant gone to the house of his daughter Kavitha, the door was closed. He knocked the door, but there was no response. On suspicion, the complainant called his son-in-law over phone and informed the said fact, who in turn told the complainant that she might be there near around the house. Thereafter, when the complainant was coming to the house of Kavitha, he noticed the sister of the son-in-law of the complainant and informed her about the said fact. Both they knocked the door and the door was opened. They entered the house of the deceased Kavitha and found her in a pool of blood near pooja room. They also noticed that gold mangalya chain was missing on her body and cupboard was open, clothes and other items were scattered. They made hue and cry. Immediately the son-in-law of the complainant was also informed about the incident and thereafter the complaint came to be filed. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the complaint was registered against unknown persons and subsequently on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, accused No.3 was apprehended. Already investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. There are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the entire charge sheet material does not disclose the overt acts as against the petitioner-accused No.3. He further submitted that only an amount of Rs.7,000/- has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He further submitted that the weapons and remaining amount have been recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime. He is ready to abide by any conditions and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that voluntary statement of accused No.1 clearly indicates that the petitioner-accused No.3 is also involved in the heinous offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He further submitted that the stolen amount has been seized from the petitioner to an extent of Rs.7,000/-. He further submitted that the accused persons conspired and went to the house of the deceased and it is accused No.3 who caught hold of the legs of the deceased and at that time, other accused persons closed her mouth and slit her neck. There is an overt act as against the petitioner-accused No.3. The alleged offence is a serious offence and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may abscond and he may indulge in similar type of criminal activities. On these grounds, he 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. As could be seen from the records, there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2 have been apprehended and on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.1, the name of accused No.3-petitioner herein was disclosed. Though there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident, on close scrutiny of the charge sheet material and the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, it would indicate that accused No.3 has also participated in the crime by holding the deceased and in his presence the alleged offence has been committed.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that this is not a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-