IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.752/2019 BETWEEN:
Ranjan Kumar @ Ranju S/o Subramani Aged about 38 years R/at No.1123, 2nd Stage, 2nd Block, Near RTO Office, BTM Layout, Bengaluru-560 070.
(By Sri B. Anand, Advocate) AND:
…Petitioner State of Karnataka by Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001.
…Respondent (By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.448/2017 (S.C.No.473/2018) of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 506, 448 and 302 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and Sections 25(1B)(B), 27 of Arms Act, 1959.
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.8 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.448/2017 (S.C.No.473/2018) of Subramanyapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 506, 448,302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1B)(B) and 27 of Arms Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is residing in the address given therein and he is working as a Welder in Mohan Raj’s Shop in Maruthi Layout. The complainant’s wife Padma is working as a park maintainer in Maruthi Layout, BBMP Park. In the corner of the park the BBMP has given a house for security, the complainant is residing in that house. On 12.10.2017 at about 11.00 p.m. when the complainant was sleeping, at about 12.30 midnight someone knocked the door by calling his name. When the complainant opened the door he saw Naveen @ Thamra, Coin Manja, Sapad @ Shivakumar, Loki @ Gubbacchi, Thejas, Prajju, Mandre @ Manja. All of them asked with regard to Appu. The complainant told that Appu is not in the house, then all of them went away.
4. On 13.10.2017 early morning around 1.30 a.m.
Appu @ Yuvraj came and knocked the door. The complainant opened the door and saw Appu was completely wet and he had come in the rain. Appu changed his clothes. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 7 entered the house and took away the dagger and tried to stab and they also spread the pepper spray on the face of Appu, when he tried to escape, at that time Naveen @ Thamra and Coin Manja assaulted Appu with dagger on his head, then Appu fell down, Loki @ Gubbacchi took the dagger from Appu and assaulted Appu on his back, head and ribs. Naveen @ Thamra and Coin Manja also assaulted Appu on his head, face and back, Thejas @ Theja, Prajju, Manju @ Wandre and Sapad Shivakumar told Coin Manja not to leave him and finish him. All of them took the bricks which were lying there and assaulted Appu on his head and kicked him. As a result of the same, Appu died on the spot. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, he was not present at the time of the alleged incident. No specific overt acts have been alleged for having participated in the alleged crime. He was at the central jail when the alleged incident has taken place. No recoveries have been made at the instance of the accused. The only allegation which has been made as against the petitioner/accused No.8 is that when he was in central jail he conspired with other accused persons and he used to make a mobile call and instigated the other accused persons to eliminate the deceased because of the previous animosity, but the said mobile which is said to have been used for the purpose of communication has not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner/accused. There are no incriminating materials as against the petitioner. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that it is the petitioner/accused who conspired with other accused persons when he was in the central jail and he contacted the remaining accused persons through mobile phone and call details were also collected during the course of investigation. All these call details clearly goes to show that accused No.8 has involved in the said offence and he conspired with other accused persons. On these grounds she rayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
8. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other material, the name of the petitioner/accused No.8 was found, but his presence and overt acts have not been mentioned in the said complaint. It is an admitted fact that he was in central jail when the alleged incident has taken place. Even though it is alleged that he conspired with other accused persons and he used to contact over the mobile phone and the messages have been passed, the said mobile has not been recovered at the instance of the petitioner/accused.
Though it is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the call details clearly goes to show that the petitioner/accused has conspired with the other accused persons, that is the matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that the petitioner/accused has made out a case to release him on bail.
9. In the light of the discussions held by me above, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.8 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.448/2017 (S.C.No.473/2018) of Subramanyapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B, 506, 448, 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25(1B)(B) and 27 of Arms Act, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner 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.
ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iii) He shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police on 1st of every month in between 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. till the trial is concluded.
iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
vi) He shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-