IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5873 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Chethan.J.B.
S/o late Basavaraju Aged about 26 years R/at Godekere Village Shettykere Hobli C.N.Halli Taluk Tumkur District – 572 124. ... Petitioner (By Sri. S. Shankarappa, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Chikkanayakanahalli Police Tumkur District Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.5/2017 (S.C.No.10030/2017) of Chikkanayakanahally Police Station, Tumkuru District for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 114, 302 read with 34 of I.P.C.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.5/2017 (S.C.No.10030/2017) of Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station, Tumkur District for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 114, 302 read with 34 of I.P.C.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the incident has taken place for a small issue with regard to cutting of branches of trees. In between the house of the complainant and accused persons, the accused family had grown some trees and the branches were over grown and they had spread towards the house of the complainant. The complainant’s family without the notice of the accused family, that too when they were not in the village, had cut off the branches of the plants. When the family members of the accused returned home, the plants were cut off. Seeing the said thing, the accused family members had asked the complainant’s family members as to why they have cut off the branches of the tree and a verbal exchange took place between both the families and the quarrel started. At that time, the deceased Basavaraju who was inside the house, came out and started quarrelling with the accused family members. The petitioner-accused No.3 who was present there, took a vessel assaulted on the head of the deceased and dragged him. At that juncture, accused No.2(Darshan) took shock absorber which was lying there and assaulted on the head of the deceased and accused No.1 assaulted with Machu on the head of the deceased and caused bleeding injuries and he was done to death.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 that this Court while considering the bail application in Crl.P.No.7255/2017, has not taken into consideration of the fact that accused No.3 has assaulted the husband of the complainant with a vessel and the post mortem report indicates that there were fracture of skull and the injury sustained to the head. The said injuries are not going to be caused if a person assault with tip of a vessel. He further submitted that the trial Court has not considered the said fact. This aspect has been lost the sight of the Court and as such, the petitioner-accused No.3 is entitled to be release on bail. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that already this Court has taken a view that there is a prima facie material as against accused No.3. But now without any new cause or new grounds, the present petition has been filed. He further submitted that the accused No.3 assaulted the complainant’s husband with a vessel and even the post mortem report clearly goes to show that the death is due to fracture of skull and the injuries, which have been caused to the head by the accused No.3. He also submitted that there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and there are no good grounds to allow the petitioner-accused No.3 on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and submission made by learned counsel for both the parties.
7. The complainant claims to be the eyewitness to the alleged incident and has categorically 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 material goes to show that at this stage, the accused persons assaulted deceased with vessel. The accused No.2 assaulted with iron rod and accused No.1 assaulted with Machu. As a result of the same, the deceased succumbed to the injury.
8. It is submitted that there are prima facie material to show that the petitioner-accused No.3 assaulted and committed the offence. The material placed on record goes to show that the petitioner- accused No.3 is involved in serious offences which are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. I have also perused the earlier order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.7255/2017, all these aspects considered and re-appreciated by this Court and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out good grounds to release him on bail. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court or review the said order without new grounds. Even the petitioner has not made out any new grounds to entertain the petition.
Under such facts and circumstances of the case, I feel this is not fit case to release the petitioner-accused No.3 on bail. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE NR/-