IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5568/2018 BETWEEN:
PRAKASH S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED 46 YEARS, R/O HULIKERE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK DIST. MANDYA-571401 (BY SRI SANJAY A PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
...PETITIONER THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD BY K R S POLICE STATION MANDYA DISTRICT REPTD BY STAE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-01 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. P. YOGANNA, HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.2/2015 OF K.R.SAGAR POLICE STATION, MANDYA AND IN S.C.NO.5053/2017 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 120(B), 201, 302 R/W.149 OF IPC AND SEC.2(C), 3 AND 25 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT.
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.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 120B, 201, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC in Crime No.2/2015 by K.R.Sagar Police, Srirangapatna.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State and perused the records.
3. The gist of the complaint are that:
On 03.01.2015, at about 1.15 p.m., when the complainant and deceased Deepu were watching T.V., at that time, accused No.3 – Giri @ encounter Giri, accused No.27 - Sujay Gowda, accused No.25 - Jagadish Gowda, Manju along with three to four persons belonging to Pala village, by conspiring themselves and holding Long and Macchu came in a Swift Car and two bicycles and proceeded towards Deepu and threw chilli powder and immediately, assaulted the said Deepu by Long and Macchu on his head and other parts of the body and caused bleeding injuries. Looking the incident, the complainant was shocked and called for help. At that time, Rajanna, the father of the deceased, Nagendra, Chethan and Santhosh came to the spot and accused by seeing the said persons, escaped from the spot. Complainant and others saw the deceased Deepu lying in the pool of blood and as such, they shifted him to K.R.Hospital, Mysuru and the doctor declared him as dead. On the basis of the same, the case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of accused No.2 – petitioner is not appearing in the FIR and already charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons. He further submitted that under the similar facts and circumstances, this Court in Crl.P.No.2826/2015 by order dated 03.06.2015, has released accused No.3 on bail and on the ground of parity, the petitioner – accused No.2 is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that the only allegations which has been made in the charge sheet as against the accused is that, he and other accused persons hatched conspiracy and thereafter, went and assaulted the deceased and caused the grievous injures. There is no other overt act attributed against the accused No.2 – petitioner. On these grounds he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that accused No.2 - petitioner is absconding since 2015 and not available for investigation and interrogation and a split-up charge sheet is filed against him. He further submitted that twenty criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner and as per the records, it is found that the petitioner is a rowdy element and there is every likelihood of absconding and may not be available for trial. Further, he submits that already charge sheet has been filed, a sessions case has been registered in this regard and it has already proceeded for trial. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which have been produced along with the petition.
7. Considering the nature of allegations made by the complainant and though this Court by order dated 03.06.2015, has already released accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.2826/2015, on certain conditions, the records indicate the fact that accused No.2 – petitioner is absconding since 2015, and it is submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader that twenty criminal cases have been registered against accused No.2 – petitioner and he was absconding since 2015. He is very much required for the purpose of investigation. His name is also shown as the rowdy sheeter.
8. Keeping in view the above said facts and under the circumstances, I feel it not just and proper to exercise the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the accused No.2 – petitioner on anticipatory bail and as such, the petition is dismissed.
Further, liberty has been given to the petitioner to surrender before the Court and move for regular bail in accordance with law, if he is advised to do so.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj