IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8445/2017 BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATHA @ BANAHALLI MANJA @ BODY BUILDER MANJA, S/O RAMSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: REAL ESTATE, R/O BANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE (R) DISTRICT-562106.
2. SATHISH T. @ SATHI, S/O THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT HUGANEKATTE, VADDARAHATTI, RAMAGIRI HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.
3. ARUN KUMAR Y @ ARUN, S/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: GARMENTS, R/AT NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE BANNAHALI, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE (R) DISTRICT-562106.
4. MADHU @ STRIKE, S/O MUNI YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: GARMENTS, R/AT SENGENA AGRAHARA, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE (R) DISTRICT-562106.
5. GIRISHA S., S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT HUGANEKATTE, VADDARAHATTI, RAMAGIRI HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.
(BY SRI. M.V. CHARATI, ADV.,) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBUGODI POLICE, BANGALORE (R) DISTRICT-562106. REPRESENTED BY LEARNED SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560001.
... PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.92/2017 OF HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT AND IN SPL.C.NO.185/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 120(B), 52(A), 212 R/W 34 AND 149 OF IPC AND SEC.
3(2) (v) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989.
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, 3 to 6 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.92/2017. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act and under Section 143, 147, 148, 120B, 52A, 212, 302, 34 read with 149 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused 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 this Court has already considered the bail petitions of accused Nos.2, 7 and 10, and 8 and 9 and he has produced the copy of the said orders. It is his submission that though it is the case of the prosecution that C.Ws.2 to 7 are the eye-witnesses to the incident and their statements were recorded on 14.03.2017, but when the remand application was filed before the Magistrate Court on 16.03.2017, there is nothing in the said remand application about the statement of eye- witnesses, which is said to have already been recorded. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition and to release the petitioners on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, opposed the petition contending that there are eye-witnesses to the incident, who have clearly stated about the overt-act done by the petitioners herein. He submitted that there is prima-facie case made out against the petitioners herein, hence, they are not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, so also, the orders passed by this Court dated 30.11.2017 passed in Crl.P.8335/2017 and the order dated 06.12.2017 passed in Crl.P.8270/2017 c/w Crl.P.8271/2017.
6. This Court has considered the entire merits of the case in detail while passing Crl.P.8335/2017 in respect of accused Nos.2, 7 and 10. This Court has already observed that if really, the statement of eye- witnesses was recorded on 14.03.2017 then necessarily the same could have been mentioned in the subsequent remand application on 16.03.2017. The remand application is silent regarding the statement of eye- witnesses. At this stage the Court has allowed the bail applications of accused Nos.2 to 7 and 10 and granted bail, so also, to accused Nos.8 and 9 by the order of this Court dated 06.12.2017 passed in Crl.P.8270/2017 c/w Crl.P.8271/2017. Looking to these materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that petitioners have made out a case and even on the ground of parity, they are entitled for grant of bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 are ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.92/2017 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:
i. Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR