IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6205 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
RAJU A @ TAMBAVARAM, S/O AIYOTHI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT NO.178, 4TH CROSS, ‘A’ BLOCK, JANAKIRAM LAYOUT, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 084. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MOHAMMED PASHA C, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BANASWADI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, BANGALORE – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI HONAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.463/2018 OF BANASAVADI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 302, 114 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in Crime No.463/2018 of Banasawadi Police Station. Thereafter, the respondent-police have filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons in C.C. No.59543/2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 302 and 114 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After committal, the same is culminated into S.C. No.289/2019.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case are that on 09.09.2018, all the accused persons have joined together at about 8.00 p.m. at Janakiram Layout - A Block, and the accused Nos.1 to 3 were standing on the road by blocking it. At that time, the deceased Imran Pasha came in that road and asked the way to go away from that particular place. The accused Nos.1 to 3 infact threatened him with dire consequences and abused him, etc. In that context, it is alleged that accused No.4 has actually instigated the other accused persons to do away with the life of the deceased and the accused No.3 prevented Imran Pasha from moving by holding him from the back. it is further alleged that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have assaulted the deceased with their knives, which they were holding. When the deceased called for help, all the accused fled from the spot. Immediately, Imran Pasha was shifted to the hospital. The brother and parents of the deceased after receiving information went to the hospital and when enquired, the Doctors informed that Imran Pasha succumbed to the stab injuries in the hospital.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statement of the eye witnesses though available, was not recorded on the same day, but it was recorded on the next day. Further, he contended that though CW2 has informed over phone about the incident, the said phone has not been seized during the course of investigation. It is contended that the eye witnesses version is concocted by the police subsequent to the incident as there were nobody at the spot according to the prosecution at the time of the incident.
5. But, as could be seen from the entire materials on record, of course, there is one day delay in recording the statement of the eye witnesses. The statement of the eye witnesses discloses that many people had gathered when the incident took place and shifted and admitted the injured to the Hospital. The presence of the eye witnesses has been specifically stated during that particular point of time, but the statement was recorded on the next day. Of course, mere delay in recording the statement of the eye witnesses on the next day, is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
6. The statement of the eye witnesses clearly discloses the presence of the accused, with his knife and hit the deceased on the head and face and the other accused not only stabbed the deceased on the chest, but also on other parts of the body. The post- mortem report shows that the injury was on the chest which caused the death of the deceased. Merely because, accused Nos.3 and 4 were already released on bail, it cannot be a ground for granting bail to the petitioner herein, as the nature of allegations made against him play a dominant role though he was instigated by accused No.4 to stab the deceased.
7. Under the above circumstances, the eye witnesses version cannot be brushed aside. Looking to the said facts and circumstances, in my opinion, at this stage, no grounds are made out for granting bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
The petitioner is at liberty to move the trial Court if advised and if any changed circumstances arise.
Sd/- JUDGE SJ