IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9318/2018 BETWEEN:
Lokesh @ Loki, S/o Ramakrishna, Aged about 26 Years, R/at 5th Cross, 5th Main, Krishnappa Layout, Hosakerehalli, BSK 3rd Stage, Bengaluru City-560 085.
Permanent R/at No.37, Guduganahalli, Krishnarajapete Taluk, Bengaluru City-571426. ... Petitioner (By Sri M.Y.Sreenivasan, Advocate) AND:
State by Girinagar Police, Bangalore, R/p by SPP, HCK, Bengaluru-560001. ... Respondent (By Sri. M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.208/2018 (S.C.No.1870/2018) of Girinagar Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B read with 34 of IPC.
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.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.208/2018 of Girinagar Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The genesis of the complaint is that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were in love with each other and both decided to live happily and they hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased who is the husband of accused No.1. In that light, on 18.07.2018 at about 9:00 p.m., the deceased and accused No.1 were in the house. As pre-planned, accused No.2 already brought some tablets and handed over the same to accused No.1 and accused No.1 mixed the said tablets in the food and after the dinner, the deceased slept, thereafter accused No.1 called accused No.2 over the phone and both of them tied hands and legs of the deceased with veil and thereafter, by squeezing the neck with the towel, accused murdered the deceased. It is further stated in the complaint that accused No.1 called the complainant at about 6:30 a.m., but he did not lift the phone. Later, the complainant called back to the accused No.1 and at that time she disclosed that the deceased is having some problem and blood is oozing from the mouth and nose and he came and saw the body of the deceased lying on the bed and after suspicion, the complainant observed some strangulation mark over the deceased neck and on the basis of the complaint, a case was registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner- accused No.2 is neither shown in the FIR nor in the complaint and he is not aware of the alleged incident. He further submitted that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witness to the alleged incident to show the involvement of accused No.2-petitioner. Already charge sheet has been filed and accused No.2-petitioner is languishing in jail for more than one year. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused No.2 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that two witnesses have stated presence of accused No.2- petitioner at the place of incident, that clearly goes to show that it is the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 who were in love with each other and they hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased and have committed the murder. He further submitted that it is accused No.2 who brought the tablets and gave to accused No.1 and accused No.1 administered the tablet and made the deceased to sleep and committed the murder. The alleged offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is prima facie material to show that the accused No.2-petitioner’s presence is involved in the crime. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the records which has been made available, discloses that the presence of accused No.2 at the place of incident is established by examining two witnesses by Investigating Officer. It is the case of the prosecution that on the night when the alleged incident took place, accused No.1 administered the tablets in the food and when the deceased slept, she called accused No.2 and thereafter, both of them tied hands and legs of the deceased and strangulated him resulting to his death. The charge sheet material does not clearly state whether it is accused No.1 or accused No.2 who has strangulated the neck of the deceased. But the presence of accused No.2 also was there and they were in love with each other and hatched a plan. Under such circumstances, both the accused are liable to be punished under the said provision. The offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There are no good grounds to release the accused No.2- petitioner on bail.
Hence, Criminal Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RB