IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 3470/2019 BETWEEN GANGARAJU S/O VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT: HOUSE OF GOVINDAREDDY NEAR PANCHAYATH OFFICE DODDATOGURU, BEGUR HOBILI BENGALURU – 560 099 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.E. BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY ELECTRONIC CITY P.S. REPTD BY HIGH COURT GOVT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HONNAPPA., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.312/2018 (S.C.NO.59/2019) OF ELECTRONIC CITY P.S., BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (A1) and the learned HCGP for the Respondent–State. Perused the records.
2. The brief factual matrix of the case are that, the petitioner and his wife (CW.20) have been residing together. The deceased one K. Chakradhar and the wife of the deceased are colleagues working in HP Company in Electronic City and he developed intimacy with the wife (CW.20) of the petitioner (A1). This has come to the knowledge of the petitioner (A1) and therefore, he has decided to do away with the life of the deceased. In this context, it is alleged that on 23.10.2018 at about 9.00 p.m., when CW.20 and the deceased were moving together, they were followed by the petitioner(A1) in his car bearing No.KA.51.AB.6063. When the deceased and CW.20 had reached near the house situated at Chikka Thogur and they opened the door, at that time, the petitioner (A1) came there and caught hold the deceased and assaulted him mercilessly with the lock of the door which was just opened and removed by CW.20 and thereafter, he took the deceased in the car to his house and there also he assaulted the deceased with a club on various parts of the body and thereafter, he has also assaulted CW.20. Further, it is alleged that, he took the deceased Chakradhar to near Pragathi Nagar and asked him to get down from the car and when the deceased was getting down from the car, then also the petitioner (A1) assaulted him severely with a stone on various parts of his body, as a result of which, he succumbed to injuries later.
3. There are three eyewitnesses to the incident viz., CWs. 16, 17 & 18, who have actually seen the petitioner (A1) assaulting the deceased with a club. CW.20, who is none other than the wife of the petitioner (A1), has categorically narrated as to how he assaulted and deceased and also implicated him as an assailant in the said case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner (A1) raised two points; Firstly, he contended that the eyewitnesses though alleged to have seen the incident, they have not immediately informed the same to the police; Secondly, the co-accused-Krishna has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2019 in Crl.P. No.1623/2019 and therefore, this petitioner (A1) is also entitled to be released on bail, on the ground of parity.
5. The alleged incident has happened on the intervening night of 23/24.10.2018. A careful perusal of the statement of the eye-witnesses reveals that, their statements have been recorded on the next day at about 2.30 pm. Therefore, at this stage, I do not find any strong reason to disbelieve the statement of the eyewitnesses. It appears the 164 statements of eyewitnesses have also been recorded before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, wherein CW.20, who is none other than the wife of the petitioner (A1), has also reiterated about happening of the alleged incident.
6. This Court while granting the bail to Accused No.2-Krishna in the said criminal petition, has considered the overt-acts independently and since he has not used any weapon for committing the alleged offences, released him on bail.
7. But, so far as this petitioner (A1) is concerned, serious allegations are made against him and there are strong prima facie materials available to hold him as such. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations, at this stage, I do not find any strong reason to enlarge this petitioner (A1) on bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner (A1) has submitted that, the trial has already been commenced, two witnesses have already been examined. Therefore, considering the long period of incarceration of the petitioner ie., from October 2018, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case on merits, as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/- JUDGE KGR*