IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7255/2017 C/w CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7256/2017 IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7255/2017 Between:
Chethan J.B.
S/o. Late. Sri. Basavaraju, Aged about 26 years, Residence of Godekere Village, Shettykere Hobli, C.N. Hally Taluk -572 124. Tumakuru District.
(By Sri. Chethan B., Adv.) And State of Karnataka Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station, Chikkanayakanahalli -572 124.
Tumakuru District.
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) ...Petitioner ...Respondent This Crl.P is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.5/2017 of Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station, Tumakuru for the offence p/u/s 302, 324, 504, 114 r/w 34 of IPC.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7256/2017 Between:
Dharshan J.B.
S/o. Late Sri. Basavaraju, Aged about 30 years, Residence of Godekere Village, Shettykere Hobli, C.N. Hally Taluk -572 124. Tumakuru District.
(By Sri. Chethan B. Adv.) And State of Karnataka Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station, Chikkanayakanahalli -572 124.
Tumakuru District.
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) ...Petitioner ...Respondent This Crl.P is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.5/2017 of Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station, Tumakuru for the offence p/u/s 302, 324, 504, 114 r/w 34 of IPC.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Since these two petitions are in respect of same crime number and since common questions of law and facts are involved in these two petitions, they are taken up together to dispose of them by this common order in order to avoid repetition of factual and legal aspects.
2. The first petition is filed by accused No.3 and connected petition is filed by accused No.2 respectively. Both these petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking their release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506, 114 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.5/2017.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that;
The wife of the deceased is the complainant in this case. Wherein she has alleged that there is a dispute between the accused and the complainant family and on 02.02.2017 husband of the complainant had removed some branches of the plant grown towards her house and thereafter on 3.02.2017 the complainant was serving food to her husband, the accused persons came near the house of the complainant, started abusing them for having cut and removing of the plants and at that time the husband of the complainant came out of the house and thereafter accused No.3 assaulted the husband of the complainant with the vessel and when the accused No.1 to 4 caught hold of the husband of the complainant, accused No.2 assaulted with iron rod caused bleeding injuries and accused No.5 instructed other accused to commit the alleged offences. On the basis of the said complaint, criminal case came to be registered against the petitioners and other accused persons for the alleged offences.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused No.3 and 2 respectively, so also, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused No.3 and 2 made submission that even looking into the complaint averments and the statement of the other witnesses it is mentioned that, when the quarrel took place between two families, deceased was pushed, he fell down and in that process the deceased sustained injuries to his head. Counsel also made submission that looking to the prosecution material it goes to show that, it is the accused No.1 who assaulted the deceased with Machu and even medical opinion is death is because of the fracture of the skull and the injuries sustained to the head. Therefore the learned counsel made submission that the prosecution materials goes to show that it was a sudden incident and there is no intention to assault the deceased. Now the investigation is completed, chargesheet is also filed, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be enlarged on bail. He also made submission that when the accused No.1 was in custody, he was expired.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, has submitted that looking to the prosecution materials, there are eyewitnesses to the incident. The complainant is also one of the eyewitness. There are other family members who are also the eyewitnesses. One Mr.G.Harish is an independent eyewitness to the incident. He has also submitted that the petitioners armed with deadly weapons and assaulted the deceased. Medical evidence is also supporting the case of the prosecution. Hence, he submitted that, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.
7. I have perused the grounds urged in these bail petitions, FIR, complaint, charge sheet and other materials placed on record and so also so, the bail order of the Sessions Judge rejecting the bail petitions of both the petitioners.
8. Complainant claims to be the eyewitness to the incident. She has stated that when she was serving food to the deceased, the accused all of a sudden came to her house, dragged and assaulted her husband. The materials goes to show that at this stage the accused persons assaulted deceased with vessel. Accused No.2 assaulted with iron rod, accused No.1 assaulted with Machu. No doubt it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein and in the statement of the witnesses it is stated that, accused No.2 assaulted with iron rod, whereas in the chargesheet materials it is mentioned, he assaulted with shock observer. On perusal of the entire materials placed on record the prima-facie goes to show the involvement of both the petitioners and using the weapons in committing the alleged offence. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record and in view of the serious offence alleged against the petitioners, I am of the opinion that it is not fit case to grant bail. Accordingly, petitions are hereby rejected.
9. I.A.No.1/2017 is filed in Crl.P.No.7256/2017.
Since the main petition itself disposed of, the application does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 is also disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MR