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.8470/2017 BETWEEN:
MADAN @ JAUNTY RHODES @ JAUNTY S/O MUNINARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT NO.129, AMBEDKAR COLONY NEAR KARAGADAMMA TEMPLE DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 024.
(BY SRI HARISH KUMAR H.C., ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIKKAJALA P.S. REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.) ... PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.24/2016 (S.C.NO.15015/2016) OF CHIKKAJALA P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 364, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 r/w. 149 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No..24/2016.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that looking to the prosecution materials, there is no prima facie case as against the present petitioner. He also made the submission that the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses were recorded after six days from the incident. It is also his submission that insofar as the petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned, there is no material placed by the prosecution to show his involvement in committing the alleged offences. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be granted with bail. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that this Court has granted bail to accused No.1 by order dated 21.11.2017 in Crl.P.No.8380/2017. Hence, he prays to allow this petition. He has also relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of H.D.Harsha V. State of Karnataka reported in 2016 (1) AKR 8 in support of his contention.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State made the submission that insofar as present petitioner is concerned, even earlier also he approached this Court that too after filing of the charge sheet. This Court after considering the charge sheet materials has held that there are ample of materials as against the petitioner. Accordingly, his bail petition came to be rejected.
Hence, he made the submission that once the merits of the case have been considered that too after filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, other materials produced in the case so also the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention.
6. I have also perused the earlier order of this Court dated 6.10.2016 passed in Crl.P.No.7122/2016. In para-2 of the said order, this Court has observed as under:
“2. The allegation of the prosecution is that in pursuance of the previous enmity between the first accused and the deceased, accused Nos.1 to 10 abducted him from his residence, took him to solitary place at Dasarahalli. Accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted him with a dragger on his stomach. The petitioner is arrested on 4.3.2016. The statements of the eyewitnesses were recorded on 6.3.2016. As per the evidence of the eyewitnesses, they saw the incident around 11.20 p.m. from a distance of 100 meters.”
7. In para 3 of the said order, further the Court has observed as under:
“3. I have perused the prosecution papers. The Investigating Officer has seized the blood sustained cloths from the second accused/petitioner herein. The weapons allegedly used for the commission of the offence that is the dragger is seized at his instance. Since there is overwhelming evidence about complicity of the petitioner in respect of the offence under Section 302 of IPC, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.”
8. In view of the aforesaid observation, this Court has already rejected the bail petition of the present petitioner. Therefore, question of again considering the merits of the case does not arise. Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE SA