IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3197/2019 BETWEEN:
Rajesh D S/o. Late Devaraja, Aged about 24 years, R/at 1st floor, Kitti Building, Canara Bank Road, Arishinakunte, Nelamangala Town, Bengaluru Rural District – 58.
Native Of Marakuppe Village, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District – 89.
(By Sri. Pratheep K.C., Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Jalahalli Police Station, Bengaluru.
Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, ...Petitioner Bengaluru - 01 ...Respondent (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.116/2017 of Jalahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence p/u/s 302 and 201 read with Section 34 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.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail in Crime No.116/2017 (S.C. No.1509/2017) of Jalahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC on the file of LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65) at Bengaluru.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The genesis of the case of the prosecution is that on 26.08.2017 at about 6.30 p.m., the complainant was informed over the phone by one Akash stating that the deceased was beaten by Chinni boys near Hoysala Circle. Immediately, the complainant went to the spot and noticed that the deceased was beaten to death and immediately he was shifted to M. S. Ramaiah Hospital for treatment but the Doctor declared him as he brought dead. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered. Thereafter, after the investigation, the chargesheet has been laid as against the accused persons.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he approached this Court in Crl.P. No.991/2019 and the same was withdrawn as not pressed. Subsequently, under the changed circumstances i.e., the material witnesses having already been examined, they have not supported the case of the prosecution including the complainant and CWs.11 and 12, who are eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. Still, some other witnesses are to be examined but they are not considered to be the material witnesses. It is his further submission that the father of the petitioner/accused No.4 expired during the pendency of the present case and this Court by order dated 08.07.2019, has granted the interim bail to the petitioner/accused No.4 to attend the rituals and came to the conclusion that the petitioner/accused No.4 is not necessary for the purpose of further proceedings. He further submitted that he is the only son to his mother, she is also suffering with old age ailments. Since he is in custody for more than 2 years, he cannot attend to his mother. When already the material witnessess have not supported the case of the prosecution, they have been treated as hostile. Therefore, the detention of the petitioner/accused No.4 is going deprive his right and he will be languished in jail unnecessarily without there being any material. The petitioner/accused No.4 is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety. In order to substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the decision of this Court in Crl.P. No.6350/2018 dated 01.04.2019 in the case of BASHA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.4 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the statement of CWs.11 and 12 clearly go to show that it is accused No.4, who took the button knife and stabbed on the chest of the deceased. Even post-mortem report also indicates that the deceased died due to the injuries suffered on the body of the deceased. It is his further submission that still some other witnesses are to be examined before the Court below. At this juncture, if the accused is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and he may threaten the witnesses and they may not support the case of the prosecution. Further it is submitted that the petitioner/accused No.4 is involved in a serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is further submitted that earlier applications have been dismissed and no new grounds have been urged. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. As per order of this Court dated 15.04.2019, after hearing the matter for sometimes, this Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the petition. Now, it is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the present case, father of the petitioner/accused No.4 expired. Already the complainant and CWs.11 and 12 have been examined, who are the material witnesses and they have not been supported the case of the prosecution. Under the changed circumstances, he is filing the present application. Though the said contention has been seriously objected by the learned High Court Government Pleader, but on perusal of the records indicates that the material witnesses have been examined before the Court below and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Under the said changed circumstance, the present petition is maintainable in law.
8. On close reading of the material, which has been made available indicates that already 12 witnesses have been examined before the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and the complainant is PW.1 and PWs.4 and 7 are the eye-witnesses in the present case. On going through the evidence recorded before the Court below, they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. Even the other witnesses, who have been examined for the purpose of proving the panchanama and other documents, they have also not supported the case and they have been treated as hostile. When the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, they have been treated as hostile and the during the course of cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited so as to substantiate the case of the prosecution. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that the continuation of the petitioner/accused No.4 in custody is not necessary. That too, when he has lost his father during the pendency of the case and he is the only son to look after his mother, who is suffering with old age ailments, under such circumstance, by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner/accused No.4 is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
9. In that light, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.4 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.116/2017 (S.C. No.1509/2017) of Jalahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC on the file of LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65) at Bengaluru subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner/accused No.4 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
3. He shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., 1st of every month before the jurisdictional police station, till the trial is concluded.
4. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
5. He shall appear before the Court regularly, if he missed any date of hearing, the trial Court is at liberty to cancel his bail and take him to the custody.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS