IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9144 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. Krishna @ Auto Krishna S/o Goplaiah, Aged about 35 years 2. Lokesh S/o late Mudlugiraiah, Aged about 38 years.
Both are R/at Theppasandra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District – 572 130 (By Sri. Manjunath M.R. Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Kunigal Police, Tumkur District, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001.
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) …Petitioners ….Respondent This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.478/2017 of Kunigal Police Station, Tumakuru District for the offences P/U/S 302, 504, 324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC.
This criminal petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R This is the petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 and in the remand application they were mentioned as accused Nos.7 and 8 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 324, 323 R/W 34 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station, Crime No.478/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 so also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that so far as petitioners are concerned, there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution. Referring the contents of the complaint, learned counsel made the submission that though there is allegation in the complaint that the petitioner No.1-Sri. Krishna who is accused No.4 thrown the big stone on the chest of the deceased, but there is no corresponding injury as such even as per the opinion of the Doctor. So far as petitioner No.2-Sri. Lokesh who is accused No.2 is concerned, even according to the complaint averments there is no allegations that he has assaulted the deceased. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that so far as the petitioners are concerned, absolutely there is no material on the side of the prosecution to show their involvement in committing the alleged offences. Counsel further submits that accused No.3 has been already enlarged on bail by the order of the Sessions Judge, Tumkur dated 09.11.2017 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1306/2017. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that looking to the complaint averments, there are allegations against both the petitioners herein, that they have assaulted the deceased so also the mother of the deceased and caused the injuries. Learned High Court Government Pleader further made the submission that matter is still under investigation. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case and also the order relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of accused No.3 – Venkatappa.
6. The said bail order is under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking for release of the petitioner/accused No.3 on regular bail. When there is allegation against the petitioners that they are involved in committing the murder of the deceased and the matter is still under investigation, at this stage, this Court may not allow the petition to grant anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected. However, liberty is given to the petitioners that immediately after completing the investigation and filing of the final report, they can approach the concerned Court.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM