IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8825/2017 BETWEEN:
Shivalingegowda B @ Venu S/o Boregowda Aged about 22 years R/at Near Mahadeshwar Temple Ranganathapura Kamakshipalya Bengaluru-560 079. ... PETITIONER (By Sri A V Ramakrishna, Adv.) AND:
The State of Karnataka By Basaveshwarnagara Police Station Represented by its State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.160/2016 of Basaveshwaranagar P.S., Bengaluru and in S.C.No.932/2016 pending on the file of LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offences P/U/Ss 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 307 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the accused No.6 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 307, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.160/2016.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.6 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The complaint averments are, accused Nos.1 to 3 along with other three accused persons assaulted the deceased with deadly weapon and caused his death.
But as per the statements of C.Ws.11 and 12 firstly accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted the deceased with long, due to which, injured moved to a little distance and at that moment, two accused persons caught hold of him and other two accused persons came and out of them, one assaulted the injured with knife. The statement of independent eyewitnesses C.Ws.15 and 16, so also, another eyewitness C.W.6 are also to the same effect. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that there is no consistency in the case of the prosecution. The FIR is registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 and the name of the present petitioner is not figured either in the complaint or in the FIR. Accordingly, prayed for allowing the petition.
4. No doubt in the complaint it is mentioned that total number of accused persons involved in the alleged act are six persons. It is the prosecution case that the eyewitnesses were taken to the police station and in the police station they have identified the accused persons. One month thereafter, the test identification parade alleged to have been conducted by the prosecution in the presence of Taluka Executive Magistrate wherein also all the accused persons were identified. The alleged offence is said to have taken place in the day light. As per the material collected during investigation, accused Nos.5 and 6 held the injured thereby facilitated the other accused persons to assault him. However, there is no allegation against the petitioner herein that he was possessing any deadly weapon and he also assaulted the deceased with the said weapon and caused injury. The prosecution material shows recovery of deadly weapon individually from accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e., long and their blood stained clothes and from accused No.3 one knife and his blood stained clothes were recovered. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that if as per the prosecution, really the petitioner along with accused No.5 caught hold the deceased and thereafter also there was an assault by other two accused persons with deadly weapon on the deceased, certainly there could have been some blood stain marks on the clothes of the petitioner. No such recovery of clothes is effected during investigation nor it is the case of the prosecution that petitioner has screened such evidence though it was available.
5. The contention of the petitioner-accused No.6 is that he is innocent and not committed the alleged offences and there is a false implication. He has undertaken to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner-accused No.6 can be admitted to regular bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.6 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 307, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.160/2016, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp