IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6395/2018 BETWEEN:
Prasanna Kumar @ Prasann S/o Ramaiah, Aged about 28 years, R/at Krishnapura Village, Agalakuppe Dhakle, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. Bengaluru – 572 101.
...Petitioner (By Sri.Chandrashekar R.P, Advocate for Sri.Sunil Kumar.S, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by SHO, Nelamangala Rural P.S., Bengaluru – 562 321.
Represented by Government Pleader High Court Buildings, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri. K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.198/2017 of Nelamangala Rural Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 149 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.198/2017 of Nelamangala Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The gist of the case of the prosecution is as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.07.2017 at about 12.30 P.M., complainant along with his friend Narasimhamurthy and deceased Paramesh went to a Bar situated at T.Begur, Thyamagondlu Road and at about 6.00 P.M., they came in front of the Bar, at that point of time Narasimhamurthy was scolding someone over the moblie phone and one person standing near the Innova Car said to have come and enraged him and at that time, deceased Paramesh slapped him and he fell down. Immediately, another person came with a knife and stabbed to the stomach of the deceased Paramesh and along with other three persons they went away in the said Innova Car. Immediately, the said injured was taken to the hospital and thereafter, complaint was registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. Subsequently, on 13.08.2017 the injured-Paramesh succumed to the injuries and as such the offence has been converted to Section 302 read with 149 of IPC.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused Nos.2 and 5 have been already released on bail and on the ground of parity petitioner/accused No.1 is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that the statements of CW2 and CW3 were not found in the charge sheet material. Even the order of the trial Court depicts that the said statements are also missing from the charge sheet. There are no overt-acts and even the statements of CW2 and CW3 has not been recorded after the accused were apprehended. No test identification parade was also made in this behalf by showing the said witness as eye witnesses. He further submitted that the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place has not also been clarified by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State made submission that earlier the petitioner/accused No.1 has approached this Court for bail in Criminal Petition No.8519/2017 and this Court, by order dated 02.02.2018 has dismissed the case after considering the merits of the case. There are no new good grounds have been made to entertain the second petition. She further submitted that the said application has been disposed after filing of the charge sheet and all the materials have been considered by this Court while disposing of the said petition. She further submitted that CW2 and CW3 are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident and they have categorically deposed the overt-acts of the petitioner/accused No.1. She further submitted that the said petitioner/accused No.1 himself has taken out knife and stabbed the deceased as a result of the same, the intestine of the deceased came out subsequently, he succumed to the injuries on 13.08.2017. She further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 is involved in the henious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and if the petitioner/accused No.1 is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and he may abscond. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have heard carefully and cautiously the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. Though it is contended by the learned HCGP that earlier the petitioner/accused No.1 approached this Court in Crl.P.No.8519/2017 and after considering the materials placed on record, this Court by order dated 02.02.2018 has dismissed the petition and no new grounds have been made out by the petitioner/accused No.1. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that the present petition has been filed after accused Nos.2 and 5 have been released on bail and it is the changed circumstances. He further submitted that the statement of CW2 and CW3 was also made available in this behalf, under the said facts and circumstances of the case, the first contention of the learned HCGP that second petition is not maintainable, is not acceptable. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no specific overt- act alleged as against the petitioner/accused No.1. Under the similar facts and circumstances of the case by exercising power on the ground of parity, the petitioner/accused No.1 may be enlarged on bail.
8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions and records which have been made available in this behalf. During the course of investigation, the petitioner/accused No.1 has been identified by eye witness and complainant is also one of the eye witnesses along with the deceased-Paramesh. The deceased was present when the said statement was made by the eye witness which clearly goes to show that it is the petitioner/accused No.1 who assaulted the deceased with knife and due to the said injury the deceased succumbed. There is specific overtact alleged as against the petitioner/accused No.1 and the said aspect has been given in detail by this Court while disposing the above said petition. Under the said facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that the petitioner/accused No.1 has made out any good grounds to allow the petition. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE UN