IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5617/2017 BETWEEN:
1. MAHESH @ THATTE S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.550/1, 2ND CROSS, SUMAGALISEVAASHRAMA ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560024 2. MANJUMITHUN @ MANJU S/O SRIRAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, 4TH MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE TO AGRO FARM, BEHIND BALAJI MARKET, HEBBAL BANGALORE-560024 (BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR K., ADV.) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAL POLICE, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ...PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR. NO.5/2016 OF HEBBAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY AND S.C.NO.969/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J.,(CCH- 63), BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,144,147,341,302,120(B) R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 341, 302, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.5/2016 and now pending in S.C.No.969/2016 on the file of LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-63).
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the charge sheet material, one Venkatesh is said to be the eye-witness to the incident. Referring to the said statement of Venkatesh given under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the JMFC Court, so also, before the Police, learned counsel has submitted that there is no consistency in both these statements. Therefore, it raises doubt whether really, he was present at the spot and witnessed the incident. The prosecution also relied upon the statement of C.W.3 one Pritam, who also claims to be the eye-witness to the incident, even perusing the statement of said C.W.3 also, it raises doubt about his presence in the said place. He has submitted that if really C.W.3 was present, then C.W.2 Venkatesh could have stated about the presence of C.W.3 at the spot. Hence, it is his contention that these two witnesses were planted by the prosecution as they are eye-witnesses. He has further submitted that accused Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 have been granted bail by the order of this Court and accused No.5 has been granted bail by the order of the learned Sessions Judge. He has also submitted that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, hence, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, looking to the prosecution material collected as against the petitioners herein, the ground of parity is not made applicable to them. As per the statement of C.Ws.2 and 3 i.e., Venkatesh and Pritam respectively, they are eye-witnesses to the incident, they have clearly and consistently stated in their statements that they have seen both the petitioners herein holding deadly weapons like knife and dragger, assaulting the deceased and causing his death at the spot itself. Hence, he submitted that since there are eye-witnesses to the incident, the petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail. He has further submitted that sofar as the antecedents are concerned, there are many such cases are pending as against petitioner No.1 and he is a rowdy sheeter and even against petitioner No.2 also there are many cases filed. Hence, submitted to reject the petition.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the other criminal cases filed against petitioner No.1 have been disposed of except only one case, which is pending, and sofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, there are no such cases filed against him.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, the charge sheet material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing of this petition. I have also perused the copy of bail orders passed in respect of other accused persons, which are produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. Now perusing the statement of C.W.2 Venkatesh and C.W.3 Pritam, they have clearly stated in their statements that they have personally witnessed the incident and seen both the petitioners assaulting the deceased with knife and dragger and causing the death of the deceased at the spot itself. They have clearly narrated that all of them gathered at Tea shop of one Gururaj and when they were having tea, the said incident took place. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the statement of C.Ws.2 and 3, there are contradictions, but it is a matter for trial, and while considering the bail petition the Court need not conduct mini-trial and even any detailed documentation is also not necessary and the Court has to see whether the materials produced makes out a prima-facie case or not. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record and collected during investigation, I am of the opinion that there is a prima- facie case against the petitioners herein and the ground of parity is not made applicable to the petitioners, hence, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners and to enlarge them on bail. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR