IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5306 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI @ TANGOO, S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT @ 21/11, 4TH G CROSS, VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BANGALORE – 562 106.
PER: SHETTYPURA, HALAGERE POST, AMRUTHURU HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.
... PETITIONER (BY SHRI. C.H.JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. PRADEEP N.R., ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADANAYAKANAHALLY POLICE, BANGALORE (R) DISTRICT – 562 106. REP. BY LEARNED SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE – 560001.
...RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITONER, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO. 422/2016 (SPL.C.NO. 222/2016) OF MADANAYAKANAHALLY P.S., BANGALORE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(2)(5) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND SEC. 143, 147, 148, 120B, 114, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This is a petition filed by the petitioner – Accused No.1 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail in respect of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 114, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and also under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered in the respondent – Police Station Crime No.422/2016.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments made by the brother of the deceased by name Mohankumar is that, there was an old enmity between Accused No.15 and the deceased Harish, regarding finance business. It is averred that the deceased was in the habit of troubling the accused persons. On 14.08.2016 at 8.00 p.m., the deceased had made his last call to the complainant and thereafter the calls were not responded. On the next day, the police had informed the complainant over his brother’s mobile phone that his brother Harish was murdered. Immediately thereafter, the complainant had rushed to the spot and found that his brother was murdered by unknown persons and, suspecting the involvement of the present accused, lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police. On the basis of the said information, an FIR came to be registered against six persons as named in the FIR and later on, the present petitioner has been arrayed and arrested as Accused No.1.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Shri C.H. Jadhav appearing for learned counsel for the petitioner on record. Learned Senior Counsel made a submission that even according to the prosecution case, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the complaint averments, learned Senior Counsel made a submission that the name of the present petitioner is not at all mentioned in the complaint, so also in the FIR. His contention is that only the name of one Kumar @ Tangoo is mentioned. But it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the name of the present petitioner is Ravi Kumar. Therefore, only on the basis of the name mentioned as Kumar, it cannot be inferred that it is the present petitioner who is referred to in the complaint.
Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that though as per the case of the prosecution 15 accused persons are involved in this incident and there are serious allegations even against Accused No.15 one Jagadish @ Jaggu, but Accused Nos.5 to 15 have already been granted bail by an order of this court. So also by the order of the learned Sessions Judge. He also made a submission that now the investigation is completed, charge-sheet is also filed and hence by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner – Accused No.1 may be enlarged on bail. It is his further submission that the present petitioner is in custody since one year when all other accused persons have already been granted bail. Hence, he submits that the petitioner may also be extended the benefit of bail.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that regarding the motive is concerned, the prosecution has placed the material collected during investigation that, in connection with carrying on finance business, there was enmity between the deceased and the present petitioner. He also made a submission that there was a conspiracy hatched by the petitioner and other accused persons to eliminate the deceased. He submitted that CCTV footages showed that the deceased along with the accused were seen in RNR Bar and Restaurant at Peenya and immediately after that, the death has taken place.
Learned HCGP also made a submission that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is a rowdy-sheeter and a rowdy sheet is opened in two police stations and apart from this case, there are nine other cases which are also registered against the present petitioner. Hence, in view of the antecedents of the present petitioner, it is submitted by the HCGP that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted bail. He also contended that the voluntary statement of the present petitioner has been recorded by the Investigating Officer in the presence of panch witnesses and at the instance of the present petitioner, blood-stained clothes and the dagger used for commission of the offence has been recovered. Hence, he submitted the petitioner is not entitled to be granted bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other charge-sheet material.
6. Looking to the materials placed on record, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. So far as the circumstances are concerned, referring to the complaint averments, it is mentioned that in connection with the finance business, there was enmity between the deceased and Accused No.15, so also one Kumar who has been named in the complaint. The complaint averments also go to show that the brother of Accused No.15 is one Kumar.
7. I have perused the FIR. It is firstly filed against six persons wherein they were named as No.1 – Double, No.2 - Kishore, No.3 - Jagadisha, No.4 - Sunil, No.5 - Pradeep and No.6 - Kumara. Now, the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that only on the basis of mentioning the name of the accused as Kumar, it cannot be said that the present petitioner is involved in committing the said offence. The other material produced by the prosecution, the CCTV footages prima facie go to show that it is Accused No.5 who asked the deceased to go to a particular place and accordingly, the deceased had gone in his car and he was waiting at Goraguntepalya and thereafter all other accused also had come to the said place. Hence, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the submission made by the HCGP that deceased was with accused persons in the said Bar and Restaurant, is not correct.
8. However, the material on record goes to show that the present petitioner was arrested on 27.08.2016, voluntary statement came to be recorded by the Investigating Officer two days thereafter, that is on 29.08.2016. At the instance of the present petitioner, dagger as well as blood-stained clothes were recovered in the presence of panch witnesses. Not only that, so far as the antecedents of the present petitioner is concerned, it is submitted by the learned HCGP that his name has been included as a rowdy-sheeter in two police stations, namely in Kamakshipalya Police Station and so also in Basaveshwaranagar Police Station. Apart from this case, he is also involved in nine other cases. Looking to these materials placed on record and the antecedents of the present petitioner, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the present petitioner for releasing him on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE KS