Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Manjunatha @ Manja vs The State Of Karnataka By Attibele Police

High Court Of Karnataka|08 January, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8906 OF 2018 C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8220 OF 2018 IN CRL.P.NO.8906/2018 BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA @ MANJA, S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 2ND CROSS, 4TH WARD, SHANKARNAG ROAD, NARAYANASWAMY EXTENSION, ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU DISTRICT-583212.
(NOW IN J.C.) ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.N.RADHAKRISHNA, ADV.) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ATTIBELE POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU–560001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.245/2018 OF ATTIBELE POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201, 364 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P.NO.8220/2018 BETWEEN RAKESH R @ RAKI S/O LATE N V RAMANATHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, CASTE-BALAGIGARU, LLB STUDENT, OXFORD COLLAGE, RESIDING AT NO.118, NARAYANAPPA LAYOUT, 4TH WARD, 4TH CROSS, VINAYAKA ROAD, ANEKAL TOWN, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 106. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION, BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH.B.G., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITION ON BAIL IN CR.NO.245/2018 OF ATTIBELE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.364,302,201,120(B),212,506 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners are accused Nos.6 and 7 in Crime No.245/2018 of Attibele Police Station, Bengaluru District. Petitioners and nine others were charge sheeted in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B, 212 and 506 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
Accused No.1 and victim Jayanth had some ill-will amongst themselves claiming their supremacy in a particular area and victim Jayanth had cut the finger of a member of the group of accused No.1. Being enraged by that, accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 8 conspired to commit murder of Jayanth. In execution of such conspiracy on 1.7.2018 at 8.30 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 8 secured Jayanth to Sai Anugraha Layout and offered him alcohol. At 10.30 p.m., when Jayanth was intoxicated, accused Nos.3, 5 and 8 assaulted him with knives and accused Nos.2, 4, 6 and 7 assaulted him with bottles on his back, armpits and stomach. Then, they shifted the injured in the car of accused No.1 to Garatiganabele road. At 12.00 midnight again they assaulted him with knives and choppers and committed his murder. Thereafter they disposed of his dead body in eucalyptus groove. Accused Nos.9 and 10, though had the knowledge of offence, harboured accused Nos.1 to 4 and screened the evidence of offence by washing the bloodstains on the car of the first accused.
3. CWs-1 and 21 to 23 are said to be the eyewitnesses. CW-1 said to have accompanied the victim and witnessed the assault by accused Nos.1 to 8. He files first complaint on 2.7.2017 at 7.00 a.m. After tracing of the dead body, he filed second complaint on the same day at 3.30 p.m. In these two complaints, he names only accused Nos.1 to 4 and two other unknown persons. His further statement to implicate the petitioners is said to have been recorded on 3.7.2017. In that statement, he says that the culprits were eight persons and on overhearing their conversation, he came to know the names of the petitioners. The other eye-
witnesses CWs-21 to 23 do not specify the names of these petitioners. Their statements are recorded on 4.7.2017.
4. The other incriminating circumstance said to be the recovery of bloodstained clothes of the petitioners. Though it is submitted that those clothes were sent for FSL report, so far the report is not received to connect those incriminating material to the crime. Petitioners are students and in custody since 14.08.2018. The petitioners have produced the records to show that they have attended the examination from 4.7.2018 to 6.7.2018.
5. Under these circumstances, these are the fit cases to grant bail with suitable conditions. Therefore, the petitions are allowed.
Petitioners are granted bail in Crime No. 245/2018 of Attibele Police Station, subject to the following conditions:
1) They shall execute personal bond in a sum of `50,000/- and furnish two sureties in the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for their appearance;
2) They shall appear before the Court as and when required for the purpose of trial;
3) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
4) They shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on alternate Sunday of each month till the charges are framed.
Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-
CT-HR
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Manjunatha @ Manja vs The State Of Karnataka By Attibele Police

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
08 January, 2019
Judges
  • K S Mudagal