IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8257/2017 BETWEEN:
K. KEERTHI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, S/O B. KRISHNA, RESIDING AT NO.13, 4TH CROSS, NEAR GANAPATHY TEMPLE, PRASHANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560079.
(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C., ADV.,) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, SHO BY VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.
(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 CR.NO.94/2017 (S.C.NO. 913/2017) OF VIJAYANAGAR P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120B, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 341, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 341, 302 read with 149 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.94/2017.
2. 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.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as petitioner is concerned there is no mention of his name in the complaint as well as in the FIR, but it is only during the course of investigation, petitioner has been arrayed as accused in the case. There is no material as against the petitioner about his involvement in committing the alleged offence. It is also his contention that petitioner is the complainant in the counter case registered in Crime No.100/2017. He also submitted that as the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. He also submitted that petitioner is aged about 20 years and accused Nos.6 and 8 have been already granted bail by this Court and hence, even on the ground of parity, petitioner is entitled for grant of bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that looking to the statement of C.W.2, he is the eye- witness to the incident. He drew the attention of this Court to contents of statement of C.W.2 and submitted that he has spoken about the presence of petitioner also and there is averment in his statement that all were possessing deadly weapon and all have assaulted Mahendra and caused the injuries. He has further submitted that the statement of C.W.2 is fortified by the complaint lodged by petitioner herein, on the basis of which counter case came to be registered, wherein he has clearly averred that he assaulted Mahendra with dagger. Hence, in view of these materials, petitioner is not entitled for release on bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. At the first instance, case came to be registered for the offence under Section 341, 307 read with 34 of IPC, but subsequently, after the demise of Mahindra, as per the requisition of Police, offence under Section 302 of IPC came to be inserted and after completion of investigation, the other offences are also alleged in the case.
6. Looking to the materials, more particularly, the statement of C.W.2, the eye-witness, so also, the contents of the counter complaint i.e., complaint lodged by the petitioner herein, which is registered in Crime No.100/2017, they prima-facie show the presence of petitioner at the spot and also the alleged assault on the deceased Mahendra. During the course of hearing of the petition, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deceased Mahendra made an attempt to assault him and because of the said reason, petitioner assaulted the deceased, which may be the defence considered during the course of trial. But at this stage, when there is a prima-facie material to show the involvement of petitioner in committing the alleged offence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant bail in favour of the petitioner. Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR