IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7165/2018 BETWEEN:
Deepak S/o Shivakumar, Aged about 22 years, R/at No.33, 13th Cross, Bandireddy Circle, L.N.Puram, Srirampuram, Bengaluru-560 021. …Petitioner (By Sri M.N. Nehru, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka By Srirampuram Police Station, Bengaluru-560 021.
Rept. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 001. …Respondent (By Sri H.S. Chandramouli, SPP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.48/2016 registered by Srirampura Police Station, Bengaluru and in S.C.No.858/2016 pending on the file of the LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 436, 326, 307 and 302 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C to release him on bail in Crime No.48/2016 of Srirampura Police Station, Bengaluru and in S.C.No.858/2016 pending on the file of the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 326, 307 and 302 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant was residing along with his wife and daughters. The eldest daughter-Megana of the complainant was pursuing her B.E. 6th Semester at Rajarajeshwari Engineering College. The petitioner- accused has also residing in the same building. The complainant also states that the petitioner-accused and the deceased-daughter of the complainant were came in contact with each other, become friends and after the friendship, they were very close and moving together. Subsequently, the parents of the petitioner-accused vacated the house and shifted to L.N.Pura and the complainant also shifted to Kalappa Block. It is alleged that on 09.02.2016, the complainant’s daughter went to the college and has not returned home in the evening and during night, she called over the phone and intimated to her father-complainant that she and petitioner-accused were in Mysuru and returning to Bengaluru on the next day, there after, the said phone was disconnected. It is the case of the prosecution that they stayed in the resort and later they came back and disclosed the fact to the complainant. On 10.02.2016, the complainant and father of the petitioner-accused met in the police station and the matter has been compromised. In the said compromise, it was decided that let the deceased continue and finish her B.E. course and search for a good job to stand on their own legs and later can decide about the marriage. It is further alleged that in the intervening night on 12.03.2016, the complainant and his wife were sleeping in the room adjacent to the hall, the deceased was slept in Varanda beside the window and the second daughter was sleeping in a separate room beside the hall. At around 12 O’ clock in the night, they heard a screaming voice and when they came out and saw in the hall, the daughter of the complainant was in ablaze in the hall and when they came near the window, they saw the petitioner-accused standing and shouting that ‘you people have not cared for my love and I will kill you people’, at that time the petitioner-accused holding a Can and the complainant thought it was petrol and later petitioner-accused ran away from the place. Immediately, they shifted the deceased to the hospital and because of the burn injuries, the daughter of the complainant succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered and after investigation, a charge sheet has been filed.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that the deceased and the petitioner-accused were friends since several years and on account of the said friendship, both were fell in love and the relationship between the deceased and petitioner-accused became very strong and decided to get marry. Under such circumstances, there is no question, he ablazing and making deceased to die. He further submitted that when the injured was taken to the hospital and therein they ought to have immediately disclosed the name of the petitioner-accused, if really they have seen the petitioner-accused by holding the Can and standing near the window. He further submitted that the medical records of the complainant, the victim and the mother of the deceased clearly goes to show that the burns were caused due to the accident and the exact detail not available. The complainant and the mother of the deceased have sustained 6% and 3% burn injury respectively. He further submitted that due to the alleged incident, the petitioner-accused has also sustained grievous burn injuries and the complainant police purposefully suppressed all the fact, but at the time of filing the charge sheet, the police have filed the outpatient record pertaining to the petitioner-accused which has been issued by the K.C.General Hospital on 12.03.2016. He further submitted that the petitioner- accused is languishing in jail since three years and material witnesses have been examined and the other witnesses have to be examined, it may require some more time. The petitioner-accused is ready to abide by any of the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also ready to offer sureties, if he is released on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently argued and submitted that all the material which is now intended to be put forth before the court was available and when he approached this Court in Crl.P.No.7462/2016, the said petition was withdrawn with liberty to move the bail application after the examination of the eyewitnesses before the trial Court. Already some of the witnesses have been examined and they have supported the case of the prosecution. When they supported the prosecution case, this Court cannot give any findings on the merits of the case, if any findings is given, definitely it is going to prejudice the case of the prosecution before the trial Court. He further submitted that earlier findings which has been given is binding upon this Court and now new case cannot be made out so as to release him on bail. He further submitted that there is ample material to connect the petitioner-accused in the alleged crime. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner- accused has approached this Court in Crl.P.No.7462/2016 and by order dated 21.02.2017, the said petition has withdrawn with liberty to move the bail application after the examination of the eyewitnesses before the trial Court. The liberty which has been given is a limited one. The right of the accused arises only after the examination of the eyewitnesses. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that the eyewitnesses have been examined by the police and they have supported the case of the prosecution, that is the matter which has to be considered and appreciated only by the trial court, while adjudicating the finality of the case. Other arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has been considered by this Court and it was available, in that light, the earlier petition was withdrawn with liberty to move the bail application after the examination of the eyewitnesses. Under the said facts and circumstances if the case is heard and decided on merits as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is having hearing on the merits of the case before the court below. It is contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that this Court cannot sit and decide the case on merits. Taking in to consideration of the fact that when the eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and even the presence of the accused at the place of incident has also not disputed and he also sustained burn injuries. Under the facts and circumstance, I feel that it is not a fit case to release the petitioner-accused on bail. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-