IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6305/2017 BETWEEN:
HEMANTH KUMAR @ HEMANTHA S/O V SUBRAMANYA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT JANARDHAN HOUSE, WARD NO.11, VINAYAKANAGAR, OPP: RAGHAVENDRA HOTEL ROAD, ANEKAL ROAD, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562106 (BY SRI.M V CHARATI, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANEKAL POLICE, BANGALORE (R) DISTRICT-562106 REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.360/2016 OF ANEKAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL AND SPL.C.NO.92/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,147,148,307,302,120(B) R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3 (2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.360/2016.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that one Kumar, who is the brother of the deceased, has lodged the complaint alleging that there was an old enmity in between the petitioner and the deceased Prabhu. On 29.12.2016 at about 10.00p.m. near Aishwarya Bar, accused Nos.1 to 7 attacked the deceased Prabhu and assaulted with deadly weapons and this fact was informed to the complainant by one Manoj, the friend of the deceased. Immediately, the complainant rushed to the spot and he found that his brother was lying in the pool of blood and there was murder by some unknown persons and later he informed the jurisdictional Police by lodging the complaint against the petitioner, one Thali Manja and Sanjay and 3-4 unknown persons. On the basis of which the case came to be registered for the said offences firstly against accused Nos.1 to 4, who are named in the FIR, and during the course of investigation the other persons were also arrayed as accused in the case.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the entire charge sheet material produced along with the petition.
5. The complainant is not the eye-witness, he is an hear-say witness. In the complaint it is mentioned that one Manoj informed the complainant about the incident. I have also perused the statement of said Manoj, wherein it is stated that during that night at about 10.00p.m. the petitioner herein came to the bar and after seeing the deceased Prabhu he asked Prabhu whether he has come to have the meals and in the meanwhile, the other accused persons, whose names are specifically mentioned by Manoj in his statement, came armed with deadly weapons and started to assault Prabhu. I have also perused the statement of other eye-witness relied upon by the prosecution. Same statements have been made even by the other eye- witness that petitioner talked to Prabhu and the petitioner asked whether he came to have the meals. But as submitted by the learned HCGP that there are other eye-witnesses to the incident, they are C.Ws.6 and 7, who are the Manager as well as Supplier, working in the said bar. Learned HCGP refers to the statement of Prakash, even if, the statement of Prakash is accepted prima-facie at this stage even in his statement there is no specific averment that Hemanth possessed with deadly weapon and he has seen Hemanth assaulting the deceased Prabhu with the deadly weapon. The petitioner has contended in the petition that he is innocent and not involved in committing the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has also undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed in the matter. Therefore, considering all these materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.360/2016 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR