IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8859/2018 BETWEEN:
Lokesh @ Hotte, S/o. Late Ankappa, Aged about 27 years, R/at C/o. Malinganna House, Behind Sinddoora Choultry Road, 14th Cross, Sarakki, J.P.Nagara, 1st Stage, Bengaluru-78. ...Petitioner (By Sri. Chandrappa.K.N, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, Thalagattapura Police Station, Bengaluru Rural, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-01. ... Respondent (By Sri. K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.247/2017 (S.C.No.124/2018) of Thalaghattapura Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence p/u/ss 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 307, 302 r/w 149 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of ARMS Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail in Crime No.247/2017 of Thalaghattapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120(B), 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Brief facts of the case are that one Narendra is the complainant. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant is a resident of 7th Cross, Kashinagar, Yalachenahalli, Bengaluru. Deceased Raghu @ Tablet Raghu is his elder brother. Deceased Raghu was doing real estate business and he was living with his wife Lakshmi. Accused Vajresh @ Vajju and the deceased Raghu were friends earlier. During 2012, a murder case was registered against deceased Raghu, accused Vajresh and several others and a rowdy-sheet was also opened against them in Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station. They were moving together frequently. However, accused Vajresh was extorting money from others by mentioning the name of deceased Raghu. When the deceased came to know about it, he called accused Raghu and warned him not to do so. However, accused Vajresh started nursing enmity against the deceased and he was having feeling that so long as deceased Raghu was alive, he could not thrive and earn money and therefore, he started to conspire for the murder of the deceased. The deceased had come to know about it, but he had not taken it seriously. Accused Vajresh was in jail with regard to some offence about 1 ½ years prior to the incident and he was recently enlarged on bail. Accused Vajresh met the complainant and told him that now he had come out of prison and he would deal with Raghu. The complainant had conveyed it to the deceased. However, the deceased had not taken it seriously. On 21.08.2017 deceased Raghu and his friends Madhu, Manu, Manjunatha @ Soda and Prakash had gone in Maruti Suzuki Ritz Car bearing Reg. No.KA-41-B-8357 to Ukkadamaramma Temple, Pandavapura Taluk of Mandya District. On 22.08.2017 at about 12.30 a.m., the complainant received a phone call from his friend Chandra informing that accused Vajresh and his friends had assaulted Raghu and he should go there immediately. The complainant reached there at about 1.00 a.m., and he found the dead body of Raghu inside the Ritz car in a pool of blood. He had various injuries on the back side of his head, chest, ribs, on his hands, thighs and various other parts of the body. Madhu who was with the deceased was also injured in the incident. On the basis of the complaint, the case registered against the accused persons.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under similar facts and circumstance, already accused Nos.4 to 7 have been enlarged on bail. On the ground of parity, the accused petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. It is further submitted that the recording of statement of the witness is also not mentioned in the remand application, if really there are eye-witness, definitely, he could have recorded the statement of the said witness at the time of inquest and further it is submitted that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.3 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that there are eye-witness to the alleged incident and specific overt- acts have also been stated by the said eye-witness that it is accused No.3, who assaulted the deceased with long on his head and other parts of the body. The deceased has suffered more than 35 injuries. The alleged offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life and further it is submitted that it is accused No.3, who has taken a major role at the time of assault. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which has been produced along with the petition.
7. As could be seen from the chargesheet material, there are specific overt-acts alleged against the petitioner/accused No.3. The similar allegations have also been made against accused Nos.4 to 7, under the similar facts and circumstance, already this Court has released accused Nos.4 to 7 on bail. Though this Court is very reluctant to exercise the power to release the petitioner on bail, however, on the ground of parity, without there being any other alternate, petition is allowed.
8. Petitioner/accused No.3 is enlarged on bail in Crime No.247/2017 of Thalaghattapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120(B), 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner/accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
3. He shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., 1st of every month between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the concerned police station, till the trial is concluded.
4. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
5. He shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities, till trial is concluded.
6. He shall regularly appear before the Court for trial, without fail.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS