IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5385/2018 BETWEEN:
Nadeesha @ Kencha S/o Rajanna Aged about 19 years Residing at near Aralimara Near Machohalli Bus Stop, Machohalli, Bengaluru-562 130 ...Petitioner (By Sri C.H.Jadhav, Senior Counsel for Sri Murthy M.V., Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka by Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station Represented by Special Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.72/2017 (S.C.No.1112/2017) of Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 212, 427 326, 307, 302 and 120B r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail in Crime No.72/2017 of Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 212, 427, 326, 307, 302, 120(B) read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. I have heard Sri. C.H. Jadhav, learned Senior counsel for petitioner and Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that deceased and accused No.1 were having animosity. Earlier, the deceased assaulted accused No.1 as such, they were grinding an axe with each other. In that light, accused No.1 along with remaining accused conspired and by constituting an unlawful assembly with an intention to eliminate the deceased, on 08.03.2017 at about 9.00 a.m., went to the house of the deceased along with other accused persons and attacked the deceased infront of his house at Kamalanagar. Accused No.1 assaulted the deceased and the deceased started to run into the house. Thereafter, accused No.1 and other accused persons by breaking open the door, brought him out and thereafter, they have assaulted with deadly weapons. At that time, CWs.1 and 2 went to rescue the deceased at that time, accused persons also assaulted CWs.1 and 2 and caused injuries. On the basis of the complaint, a case came to be registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enmity was there between the deceased and accused No.1 and there is no animosity between the deceased and accused No.2. It is further submitted that in the entire complaint, the name of the petitioner is not found. That itself clearly go to show that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged offences. Further it is submitted that the petitioner is aged about 18 years and he is not having any bad antecedents. Already the charge sheet has been filed and accused Nos.6 to 12 and accused No.3, who were in juvenile released on bail. On the ground of parity, the petitioner/accused No.2 is also entitled to be released on bail. Further it is submitted that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer the surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that because of the previous animosity between the deceased and accused No.1, accused No.1 had a criminal conspiracy along with other accused persons in his house and by constituting an unlawful assembly, had assaulted and caused the death of the deceased. It is further submitted that there are eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and even the long, bicycle and stained cloths were recovered at the instance of accused No.2 and further by referring to the statement of eye-witnesses, it is submitted that it is accused No.2, who also assaulted the deceased with iron long and caused injuries and due to the injuries, he died. It is further submitted that the charge sheet material clearly go to show that the active participation of accused No.2 in the alleged crime and further it is submitted that the alleged offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life and there are no grounds to release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. The contents of complaint indicates that the name of petitioner/accused No.2 has not been mentioned. But on close security of the charge sheet material, it discloses that it is accused No.2, who assaulted the deceased with iron long and has also actively participated in the alleged crime. Because of the injuries, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. During the course of the said scuffle, there is material to show that there are eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and the recovery of long, bicycle and stained cloths have also been made at the instance of the accused No.2. Therefore, there is ample material to show that petitioner/accused No.2 is also involved in a heinous offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Though it is contended that the name of the petitioner is not found in the complaint, has not having criminal antecedents, is aged about 18 years and no enmity between the deceased and accused No.2, when the charge sheet material has been filed as per under Section 120B of IPC, conspiracy and other aspects shows that he is equally liable under the said provisions. In that light, the said submission is also not acceptable. Hence, there is no good ground to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS