IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.71/2019 BETWEEN :
B.R. Manjunatha S/o Rangaswamy Aged about 20 years Residing at Bhairashettyhalli Village Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk Bengaluru Rural District-562 123.
(By Sri B.S.Jeevan Kumar, Advocate) AND :
… Petitioner State of Karnataka by Nelamangala Rural Police Station Bengaluru Rural District Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560 001.
… Respondent (By Sri M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.107/2018 of Nelamangala Rural Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 302 r/w. Section 149 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.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No.107/2018 of Nelamangala Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302 r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased was working in Giriyas show room. About one year back he got married with one Anitha. They were living together. On 26.3.2018, there was Brahma Rathotsava of Byla Anjaneya Swamy in the Village. Some quarrel took place between the accused on the one hand and the deceased and others on the other hand for putting up flexes and printing their photos and their names, which was resolved with the intervention of the elders of the Village. On the same day at about 5.00 p.m. chariot procession was over and the complainant went on the motorcycle of accused No.3-Rajesh. When they reached near Railway Gollahalli Gate, accused No.1-Ravi was standing there with liquor in bottles. He also boarded the said motorcycle and all of them went to a field near Santhosi Matha Farm. Accused No.1 called accused No.2 Manjunatha over phone and invited him and other boys for drinks. After some time, accused Nos.2, 4 and two other persons came there. All of them consumed the liquor. The complainant telephoned to his friend and went away on his motorcycle. On the way he met his aunt Rathnamma, who informed that her son Manjunatha had gone somewhere. Immediately the complainant telephoned to accused No.3-Rajesh and called him near the temple and asked him to search the said Manjunatha. Thereafter, the complainant started playing near the temple. Thereafter, Accused No.1 telephoned to the complainant using the mobile of Manjunatha and asked him to send Shashi as he wanted to assault him. The complainant agreed for the same, but he continued to play near the temple. At about 6.15 p.m., he received a telephone call from the deceased Maruthi asking him to come to his house. The complainant told that he would come immediately, but he remained near the temple. At about 6.45 p.m, mother-in-law of the deceased telephoned by saying that Shashi told her that Maruthi was being assaulted near a layout and he was also assaulted and he had escaped. Immediately the complainant along with accused Nos.1 and 2 went to the spot where they noticed that injured Maruthi was lying on the layout road and his motorcycle was found lying there. The injured was taken to General Hospital, where the doctors verified and found him dead. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no serious overt acts alleged as against petitioner-accused No.2. He further submitted that only when further statement of CW.2-Shashi was recorded, he made an attempt by saying that accused No.2-petitioner has also assaulted the deceased. He further submitted that there were no allegations in the first complaint as against accused No.2. No incriminating material has been seized either from the spot or from the petitioner. He further submitted that there is inconsistency in the statement given by the complainant. He further submitted that postmortem report discloses that no stab injuries were found on the body of the deceased. He further submitted that only allegation which has been made as against petitioner accused No.2- is that he assaulted CW.2-Shashikumar with beer bottle on his forehead and on his right side of the body and he has sustained the injuries. The injuries sustained by CW.2-Shashikumar are simple in nature and he is out of danger. Postmortem report shows that death is due to head injury and intracranial haemorrhage and accused No.2 is not responsible for the said injury. Petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions 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 because of the ill-will for not having put the flexes, printed the photos and names of accused there was a quarrel between the accused and the complainant and as a result of the same, they called the deceased and assaulted him with the beer bottles and caused his death. He further submitted that Shashikumar is the injured eye witness who has categorically deposed that it is accused persons who have assaulted the deceased. He further submitted that accused No.2 has assaulted on the chest of the deceased with beer bottle and blood stained clothes were also seized from the possession of the petitioner. He further submitted that 13 injuries were found on the body of the deceased and the alleged offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. 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 contents of the complaint, it would indicate that it is accused No.4 who has assaulted the deceased. But it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already accused Nos.3 and 4 have been released on bail. As could be seen from the statement of Shashikumar who is said to be the eye witness to the alleged incident, he has stated that accused No.1 Ravi and accused No.2 Manjunatha assaulted the deceased with beer bottle on his forehead and other parts of the body and thereafter when he came to rescue the deceased Maruthi, these accused persons assaulted him and went away from that place. There is no allegation made in the said statement that it is accused No.2 who assaulted the deceased with the beer bottle on the head of the deceased Maruthi. It is accused No.2 who had hit on the chest of the deceased with stone. But as could be seen from the Postmortem report, which is made available, the doctor is of the opinion that death is due to head injury and intracranial haemorrhage and it is not alleged that it is accused No.2 who assaulted on the head of the deceased.
8. Be that as it may, when under similar facts and circumstances, accused Nos.3 and 4 have been released on bail, accused No.2-petitioner herein is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. Already charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is not required for further investigation and interrogation. Under such circumstances, I feel it is just and proper that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, it would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and accused No.2-petitioner herein is enlarged on bail in Crime No.107/2018 of Nelamangala Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302 r/w. Section 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.
iv) He shall be regular in attending before the trial Court till the trial is completed.
*ck/-
Sd/- JUDGE