IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R B CRL.P. No.5827 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
PAVAN KUMAR S/O. LATE GANESHA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O. C/O. REDDY’S HOUSE, NO.70, NEAR JUICE CENTER, HOYSALA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 043.
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BEHIND RAMA TEMPLE, YARRAYYANA PALYA, RAMAMURTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 016. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.N. MADHAVA REDDY, ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY RAMAMURTHINAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, NOW REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.688/2016 OF RAMAMURTHYNAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY AND S.C.NO.515/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 57TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 323, R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This is the petition filed by the petitioner accused No.1 filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in respondent police station in Crime No.688/2016.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, the father one Shivakumar is the complainant and the deceased Shivaraja is the son of the complainant. The allegations in the complaint, that on 5.12.2016 complainant went to run the auto rickshaw and came to the house at 8.30 p.m. At that time somebody phoned to Shivaraja, the son of the complainant. Shivaraja went out of the house and he did not come back to the house even at 9.00 p.m. When the complainant phoned and contacted Shivaraja to come to the house to have the dinner, Shivaraja told that after two minutes he will come and he disconnected the phone. 5 – 10 minutes thereafter one Govindaraju, a boy of his area told that somebody assaulted his son. Then, the complainant, his wife Kamalamma came nearby the bus stand of Muneshwara Nagar where people were gathered. There was blood stains at the said place and the people gathered there told the complainant that one Srikanth shifted the son of the complainant to Koshis hospital in an auto rickshaw for treatment. Immediately the complainant and his wife went to Koshis hospital, there son of the complainant was unconscious. There were injuries on the chest, stomach, back portion caused with the help of knife. There was severe bleeding. The doctor at the Koshis hospital advised the complainant to shift the injured to some other hospital. Then they took the injured in the ambulance towards Manipal hospital. They reached there at 10.00 p.m. The doctor at Manipal hospital after examining told that he is brought dead. When the complainant enquired with Srikanth, he told that some persons of Yarrappanapalya and Muneshwara Nagar three boys assaulted with knife, machu on the deceased and committed the murder. On the basis of the said complaint, firstly the case came to be registered against unknown persons and during the course of investigation the present petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.1.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the entire materials produced by the petitioner along with the petition. Here, Srikanth is the main witness according to the prosecution case who witnessed the incident and informed the father of the deceased. But looking to the statement of Srikanth and also the other witnesses, CWs.2, 3, 6 and 7 whose statements came to be recorded on 25.12.2016, whereas the incident took place on 5.12.2016. Therefore, there is a delay of 20 days in recording the statement of alleged eye witnesses. So far as the other eye witnesses are concerned, it may be alright, but so far as Srikanth is concerned, when his name is mentioned in the complaint that he is the person who told the complainant about he personally witnessing the incident, the police ought to have recorded his statement at the earliest point of time, which is not done in this case. The petitioner contended that he is innocent and not involved in committing the alleged offences. It is no doubt true, as per the version of the eye witnesses also they have stated that it is the present petitioner who assaulted the deceased with knife and caused the injuries. Even if it is assumed to be true, but looking to the delay in recording the statement of alleged eye witnesses after 20 days and as the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner accused No.1.
5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner - accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail of the alleged offences subject to the following conditions.
(1) The petitioner to execute personal bond for `.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
(2) He shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
(3) He has to appear before the concerned court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl