IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6946 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
K.T.Raghavendra, S/o. Late Thammanagowda, Aged 36 years, Coffee Planter, Koduhalli Village, Dasthare Hobli, Annur Post, Chikkamagaluru Taluk and District-577130 (By Sri. N.Ravindranatha Kamath, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Aldur Police Station, Chikkamagaluru District, Represented by its S.P.P., High Court Building, Bengaluru-01.
(By Sri. K.R.Keshavamurthy, Spl.P.P., & Sri. Dawoodkhan H.G., Spl.P.P.) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.NO.123/2019 of Aldur Police Station, Chikkamagaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC and under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutors appointed by the State for the respondent. Perused the materials on records.
2. The brief fact matrix of the case are that:
A person by name Raju H N S/o Nanjundegowda has lodged a complaint stating that on 10.08.2019, his brother by name Suresh and father Nanjundegowda left the house in search of some cattle. In fact, the complainant also went to their land and on that day, at about 8.30 to 9.00 am, it is alleged that the accused/petitioner, who was holding a Gun in his hand and there was a small quarrel between the brother of the complainant Suresh and the accused. In that context it is alleged that the petitioner shot at the deceased Suresh, who sustained severe injuries. The father of the deceased Nanjundegowda who was present along with the deceased has actually seen the incident and he came running towards their land where the complainant and others were present. He informed them not to go near the accused because he has had Gun in his hand, all those persons were watching the dead body of the deceased being dragged from one land to another by the accused persons and in fact, they put a chopper in to the hands of the deceased so as to create a story against the acts committed by them on the deceased Suresh. On the basis of the above said allegations the police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet.
3. Though this Court is debarred from giving a finding, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that there was some quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner. There might be accidental fire that might have happened at that particular point of time. He also says that the accused No.2 was not present and there is some delay in lodging the complaint. There was injury to the accused also, that shows that there was no pre-meditated act on the part of the petitioner. Therefore looking to the facts and circumstances, the entire case of the prosecution has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as the witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, they may be interested.
4. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutors for respondent-State submitted that when the eye witnesses version is available and the other circumstances are also pointing towards the guilt of the accused, this is not the stage where the Court can exercise the jurisdiction for the purpose of enlarging the petitioner on bail.
5. In the light of the above said submissions, without expressing anything on the merits or demerits of the case and without appreciating any materials on record as such, if it is seen that there is an eye witness to the incident particularly when the accused shot towards the deceased, his father was present, he has given a statement before the police. Further there was seizure of gun and that there is no dispute that the said gun was belonged to the petitioner. Further added to the above, the medical certificate so far as the accused is concerned, he also received an injury prior to the alleged incident. These are all the prima-facie materials available on record. At this stage, it cannot be brushed aside or ignored by the Court. Whether the prosecution proves that aspect or not irrespective of the factum placed before this Court shows a prima-facie material particularly against the petitioner herein. Therefore, in the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to release the petitioner on bail, particularly when the eye witnesses version is available. However, it is made clear that on any changed circumstance, the petitioner is at liberty to move the trial Court for grant of bail in future. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Kmv/-
SD/- JUDGE