IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8159/2018 BETWEEN RAHUL RAJ S/O SHIVA SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT NO.9, 20TH "F" CROSS, EJIPURA,VIVEK NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 047 (BY SRI ANEES ALI KHAN, ADVOCATE) AND ... PETITIONER STATE BY ADUGODI P.S. BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 001 (BY SRI M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.146/2018 REGISTERED BY ADUGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU AND S.C.NO.1556/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-64) BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition is by accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., to release him on bail in S.C. No.1556/2018 pending on the file of the LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-64), Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that, because of the earlier enmity between the accused persons and the deceased, on 19.05.2018 in between 7.45 p.m. and 8.00 p.m., when the deceased along with CWs2 and 3 was having tea in front of a tea stall, at that time accused No.2 released smoke to Javeed after smoking cigarette. Javeed objected the bad act of the accused, as such, a quarrel took place between the accused and Javeed. In the quarrel the accused assaulted deceased Javeed, at that time public gathered there, pacified the quarrel. On the same day, when Javeed and his two friends were returning to their houses, as they came near Koramangala 6th Cross, Rajendra Nagar, the accused persons came there, picked up quarrel with Javeed and prevented him. At that time, accused No.1 stabbed twice to the thigh of Javeed, as a result, Javeed fell down on the ground. At the same time accused Nos.2 and 3 sat on his body, assaulted and held him tightly, at that time accused No.1 stabbed on the left chest of Javeed, accused No.3 snatched the knife from accused No.1 and stabbed Javeed twice by the knife on his back. CWs.2 and 3, who were present there at that time, tried to rescue the deceased from the accused and cried for help. On seeing the public rushing towards the place of offence, the accused persons ran away from the spot. On the basis of the complaint, a case came to be registered against the accused persons.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in the complaint no allegations have been made against the petitioner. Subsequently, only to inculcate the petitioner by the statement of eyewitnesses he has been incorporated mentioning that he has assaulted the deceased on his back with the knife snatched by him from accused No.1. There is contradictions between the statement of the complainant and the eyewitnesses. He further submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed and the only allegation in the charge sheet made against the petitioner is that he was present at the place of incident and instigated the other accused persons to commit the alleged offence. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the version of the eyewitnesses with regard to the quarrel goes to show that it is accused No.3 who snatched the knife from accused No.1 and assaulted on the back of the deceased. He further submitted that there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and there is consistency in the statement of the eyewitnesses to show that it is accused No.3 who has assaulted the deceased with knife. He further submitted the knife and other articles have been recovered at the instances of the petitioner. He further submitted that five injuries were found over the body of the deceased and even the post mortem report also indicates that the death is due to multiple injuries which has been sustained by accused. He further submitted that there are ample material to connect the accused to the crime and in that light the accused is not entitled to be released 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 for the parties and also perused the records, including the contents of the complaint.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and the relevant documents pertaining to the eyewitnesses, it is alleged that accused No.1 stabbed on the thigh of the deceased and when the deceased fell down on the ground at that time accused Nos.1 and 2 sat on his body and it is accused No.3 who snatched the knife from accused No.1 and stabbed twice on the back of the deceased. Though it is argued and contended that there is no consistency and there are contradictions in the statements of the complainant and the eyewitnesses that has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial, at this stage the said contradictions are not taken into consideration for the purpose of releasing the accused on bail. When there are as many as 10 witnesses and all the eyewitnesses have categorically stated that accused No.3 has assaulted the deceased twice on his back with knife by snatching it from accused No.1, under such circumstances the petitioner has involved in a serious offence, there are overt acts as against him and it is also corroborated by the post mortem report.
8. In the light of the discussions held by me above, I do not find any good grounds that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs*