IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7280 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Rakesh S, S/o Shankarappa, Aged about 21 years, R/at No.179/2, Near Water Tank and Yellamma Temple, Veerasandragrama, Hebbagodi, Bengaluru-560100.
(By Sri. Sunil S Narayan., Adv) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Electronic City Police Station, Electronic City.
... Petitioner … Respondent (By Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.39/2017 of Electronic City P.S., Bengaluru City and Spl.C.C.No.14/2017 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District for the Offence P/U/S 302, 120(B) R/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, 1989.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This is the petition filed by petitioner-accused No. 2 under section 439 Cr.P.C. petition seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 149, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police Crime No. 39/2017 and later-on offences under the provisions of SC/ST (Prohibition of Atrocity ) Act, i.e., Section 3(X)(2) and (5) of the said Act is also added in the case.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.2. So also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. Counsel for the petitioner made the submission that looking to the prosecution material, complaint and even the statement of witnesses, they will not make out any prima-facie case about the involvement of the petitioner committing the alleged offences. He also made the submission that even in the earlier incident so far as the murder of one Muniyappa is concerned, the present petitioner was not involved and no case was registered in that regard. Learned counsel submitted that there are no eyewitnesses to the case. The case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. Hence the learned counsel submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner – accused No.2 may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that there are eyewitnesses CWs 2, 19 and 22 who personally witnessed the incident. He also made the submission that at the instance of the present petitioner, the knife has been recovered in the presence of panch witnesses by the I.O. during investigation. Learned HCGP made the submission that even CW19, the security guard also stated in his statement that he personally witnessed the incident and he has identified the present petitioner in the police station. The learned HCGP brought to the notice of the court the medical records regarding the cause of death the opinion of the doctor is death is because of the multiple stab injuries sustained. Hence he opposed the petition.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other documents produced by the learned HCGP.
6. Perusing the statement of CW2, 19 and 22, prima-facie at this stage, they go to show that all these witnesses have personally witnessed the incident. The statement of CW2 is also to the effect that the present petitioner-accused No.2 who assaulted the deceased with knife on the stomach and other parts of the body repeatedly and when they wanted to go to the rescue of the deceased, the petitioner threatened the said persons if they come to the rescue, they will also be eliminated.
During the course of investigation, the IO recorded the voluntary statement of the present petitioner and the knife has been seized in the presence of panch witnesses. Medical evidence is consistent with the case of prosecution. In view of these materials, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv