IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.590 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
MUNIRAJU S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A JAYADEVA RAMANAGAR HULIMANGALA POST JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560105 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. DILRAJ J.ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BANGALORE-560001 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.236/2017 (S.C.NO.165/2018) OF ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 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.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail in Crime No.236/2017 of Electronic City Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the deceased was a JCB driver working under accused. According to the prosecution, on 17.08.2017 at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased left the house with accused and thereafter he was not to be seen. His dead body was traced in a vacant shed at Bingipura Road, on 18.08.2017 at about 7.00 p.m. by the brother of the deceased. Investigation was taken up and the petitioner/accused herein was arrested on 27.08.2017. In the course of investigation CW-19 was examined and according to him, on17.08.2017, he dropped accused and the deceased near the aforesaid shed with injuries. On the basis of this complaint, the said case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner/accused No.1 had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.3081/2018 at that time, CW19 was not examined and now, CW-19 has been examined and in his evidence nothing has been stated as against the petitioner/accused No.1. Further, it is submitted that the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence and the petitioner/accused No.1 is not necessary for further investigation or interrogation. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned State Public Prosecutor vehemently argued and submitted that the statement of CW-19 clearly goes to show that there are allegations as against the petitioner/accused No.1 for having been involved in the alleged offence. There are eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The Club and other materials have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner/accused No.1. He further submitted that the entire case of the prosecution has to be looked into when the case rests on circumstantial evidence. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petitions.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the orders passed by this Court.
7. In Criminal Petition No.3081/2018 vide order dated 09.07.2018, this Court has not given liberty to the petitioner/accused No.1 to file a fresh bail application after the examination of CW-19. Be that as it may, when the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove all the circumstances to show that whether the petitioner/accused No.1 has been involved in the heinous offence. The alleged offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Under such circumstances, the petitioner/accused No.1 has not made out any good grounds to interfere with the earlier order passed by this Court and he is not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY