IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.44 of 2019 BETWEEN:
MR. GANGADHAR @ BONDA, S/O. LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.72, 2ND CROSS, DHOBIGHAT, NEAR BRINDAVAN, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE - 560 018.
(BY SRI SURESHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560 001.
(BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.No.218 of 2017 OF CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 120-B, 114, 302 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the entire charge-sheet papers.
2. It is alleged that on 21.05.2017, the accused persons including the present petitioner, who is accused No.4, have joined together and discussed with each other to do away with the life of the deceased by name Arun Kumar @ Vaale. In this context, it is alleged that on the same day, at about 10.30 p.m., in a Bar namely, Ravi Bar and Restaurant situated at Gangondanahalli Main Road, Bangalore, when the said Arun Kumar was there, all the accused persons who were also there consumed alcohol and assaulted the deceased indiscriminately with Beer bottles. The specific allegation so far as accused No.4 is that he also assaulted the deceased with the help of an empty Beer bottle on the forehead of the deceased and pushed the deceased to the kitchen room and accused No.2 also assaulted the deceased with an iron chair etc. On the above said allegations, charge sheet being filed, the trial has already been started before the trial Court and one of the witnesses has already been examined as per the information given by learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that there are eyewitnesses to the evidence, who were examined as CWs.19 to 26 and they were there in the said Bar at that particular point of time. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2002)1 SCC 40 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court, of course has stated that considering the gravity and severity of the punishment prescribed, the Court has to consider the bail petitions considering the protection of personal liberty and unnecessary burden on the State to keep the person against whom the offence is yet to be proved as guilty. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed that as each case is however to be decided on its own merits, there cannot be any precedent on the factual aspects of the case. Therefore, it is clear that in this particular case, when the eyewitness version is available and the evidence has already begun before the Court and some of the witnesses have already been examined, it is for the trial Court to appreciate the evidence and draw inference in connection with the case. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a fit case for the Court to exercise its discretion to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the mother of the petitioner is also suffering from illness and there are no other persons to take care of her. He also submitted that though another brother of the accused is there, he is residing separately and he is not taking care of his mother. When another son is already there, he has to take care of his mother. It is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. There is no medical certificate issued by the Doctor about the severity of the condition of the mother of the petitioner is produced. Therefore, in the above said circumstances, on the above said medical ground also, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.
As the trial has already begun, I feel it is just and necessary to direct the trial Court to expedite the trial itself and dispose of the case on merits, as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/- JUDGE mv