IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7872/2017 BETWEEN:
PURSHOTHAMA V, S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS # 470, 11TH B CROSS OPP. RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE 4TH T BLOCK JAYNAGAR BANGALORE-560011.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY R., ADV.,) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, JAYNAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY-560011 (REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-560001.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.212/2017 OF JAYANAGAR P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 144, 147, 148, 114, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 114 read with 149 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.212/2017. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments drew the attention of this Court to the contents of the complaint averments and also the other prosecution materials and submitted that C.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased together went to the said place and they were asking the students to handover the mobile phone, at that time there were exchange of words. He also submitted that, it is C.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased, who started the incident, tried to assault the petitioner herein and the other students and because of that reason, the petitioner herein was enraged and he took the knife from the bag, which was kept there, then he assaulted. He has further submitted that if the contents of the complaint are perused, they shows that it is the accused, who is responsible for initiation of the incident, but in fact it is the deceased and C.Ws.1 and 2 are responsible and when they assaulted the petitioner herein, in a spur of moment, the petitioner in-turn took the knife and assaulted. It is also his submission that there is no intention on the part of the petitioner herein, he was not knowing about the deceased or C.Ws.1 and 2, hence, the materials will not attract the alleged offence under Section 302 of IPC, at the most it may be the offence under Section 304 of IPC. He has further submitted that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that there are three eye-witnesses to the incident, they have consistently stated in their statements that petitioner took the knife and assaulted the deceased, hence, it shows the intention on the part of the petitioner to commit the murder of the deceased. He has further submitted that the knife and his blood stained clothes worn at the time of the incident are recovered at the instance and as per the voluntary statement of the petitioner. Hence, there is prima-facie material placed by the prosecution about the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, he submitted that petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials produced along with the petition.
6. I have also perused the Post-Mortem report, wherein the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, has mentioned that death is due to stab injuries sustained. Looking to the opinion of the Doctor and the version of the eye-witnesses that the petitioner assaulted the deceased with knife on the stomach portion and as the injuries are mentioned in the PM report stating that they are ante-mortem in nature, prosecution placed prima-facie material at this stage to show the involvement of petitioner in commission of alleged offence, hence, I am of the opinion that it is not a case for grant of bail in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR