IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9175 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. B K ASHWINI AGNI S/O KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS STUDENT, R/O KARAGAL ROAD BIRUR-577 116.
2. JEEVAN B N S/O B P NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS ENGINEERING STUDENT R/O KARAGAL ROAD 9TH WARD, BIRUR TOWN-577 116 R/O MALLESHWARAM GAYATHRINAGAR BENGALURU-560 021. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI RANGASWAMY R AND SRI VENUPRASAD R, ADVOCATES) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE KADUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT NAMITHA MAHESH B G, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.148/2018 (S.C.NO.130/2018) OF KADUR POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.148/2018 of Kadur Police Station which is now pending in S.C.No.130/2018 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
That victim Rohan had an affair with a girl by name Nayana, the relative of second accused. The petitioners were irritated by that. Therefore, the petitioner along with other juvenile offender conspired to commit murder of Rohan. In execution of such conspiracy, on 3.7.2018 the juvenile offender induced the victim to travel in the car of Accused No.1 to take a drop from college to his residence. The petitioners and juvenile offender took the victim in car bearing No.KA- 05/N-3993 to an isolated place near Lingadahalli. Accused Nos.1 and 2 strangulated him by a veil. Thereafter to screen the evidence, the accused disposed of the dead body in the forest area by the side of Tarikere-Chikkamagalur, State High Way No.57.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and to establish the motive, the Investigating Officer has not examined the girl Nayana. He further submits that the petitioners are students and they are ready to take up trial.
4. Per contra, the learned HCGP submits that the dead body was traced at the instance of the petitioners. She further submits that there is sufficient material to show that the vehicle was being used by the first accused and that was recovered at the behest of the petitioners. She further submits that as regards the affair between the deceased and Nayana, the Investigating Officer has collected the call detail records and there are witnesses to speak that the accused and the deceased were last seen together.
5. The charge sheet records prima facie show that on the basis of the alleged voluntary statement of the petitioners the dead body of victim was discovered from the forest area. Further, there are statements of the registered owner of the car and the agent regarding the sale of the car in question to the first petitioner and that car was being used by the first petitioner. The charge sheet records further show that the car was recovered at the instance of petitioners and the foot-mat of the car contained the blood stains. The deceased was hardly sixteen years old.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to rely on an unreported order of this Court in Mahesh @ Nayimahesha .vs. State by Biligere Police Station (Criminal Petition No.4533/2017 disposed of on 27.07.2017) to contend that in a similar circumstance this Court had granted bail to the accused in the said case.
7. The facts of the said case were different.
Apart from that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gajanand Agarwal .vs. State of Orissa and Others (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 131, has held that the orders of bail are not necessarily orders of any precedental value.
8. The place where the dead body was disposed was within the knowledge of the petitioners. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and the material on record, this is not a fit case to grant bail.
9. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.