IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.224/2019 BETWEEN :
Sri Ankith Kumpala S/o Jagadeesha Poojary Aged about 24 years R/at Ashraya Colony, Moorukatte, Kumpala Kotekar Post Mangaluru-575 022 Presently residing at C/o Gokuldas Shenoy Near Sridevi Glass House Kodankur, Udupi.
(By Sri P.P.Hegde, Advocate) AND :
… Petitioner The State through the Police Inspector Udupi Town Police Station, Udupi, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001.
… Respondent (By Sri H.S.Chandramouli, SPP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.13/2017 of Udupi Town Police Station, Udupi, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 201 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No.13/2017 of Udupi Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 201 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 29.1.2017 at about 00.10 hours on Sharada International Hotel, Moodanidambur Village, Udupi Taluk on road divider of N.H.66, accused picked up quarrel with the deceased Mohammed Haneef as he drew his autorickshaw on wrong side. In the meanwhile CW.1 came to pacify the quarrel. But, with an intention to commit the murder, accused caused the injuries on the chest and stomach of CW.1. In the meanwhile the deceased intervened to pacify the quarrel, at that time accused stabbed on chest and stomach of the deceased and as a result of the same, the deceased sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already charge sheet has been filed. Initially the complaint was registered against unknown persons. The charge sheet material indicates that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. He further submitted that there are so many contradictions and omissions with regard to the colour of ‘T’ shirt and even with regard to the injuries suffered by the injured. He further submitted that the accused-petitioner was also taken to the hospital for examination and it was found that the injuries suffered were about 10 days prior to the examination. He further submitted that when the complaint was registered, it is CW.1 who was the only eye witness but subsequently, the case has been improved and one more eye witness has been mentioned. He further submitted that further statements of the witnesses have been recorded, wherein they have stated that they identified the accused and TI parade has been held after 21 days and the identification of the accused was got done. He further submitted that the accused was already known to the witnesses and thereafter they have identified him and as such the TI parade conducted is not going to help the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. Petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned SPP vehemently argued and submitted that statements of the deceased, the injured eye witnesses have been recorded and if the said evidence is unrebutted, then definitely it is going to help the case of the prosecution. Though there are some contradictions and omissions, they cannot be looked into at this stage by evaluating the material which has been placed. He further submitted that the material on record clearly indicates the involvement of the accused in a serious offence of causing the death of the deceased. He further submitted that TI parade has also been conducted wherein eye witnesses have identified the accused. He further submitted that the petitioner is involved in many more cases and as such he is not having any good antecedents. If he is enlarged on bail he may involve in such crimes and he may also create a communal in the society. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions by drawing the attention of this Court to the charge sheet material. It is his contention that an innocent person has been falsely implicated in the case. It is not just and proper to discuss the case on merits at this juncture, that too while dealing with the bail application. The only point that has to be considered by this Court is whether there is any evidence to connect the accused to the alleged crime and whether there is any prima facie material as against the petitioner. Though there are several contradictions and omissions pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, ultimately the point remains is that whether the accused is involved in the alleged crime. The colour and lines of T-Shirt etc. those are all matters which have to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial and not at this stage. But on entire scrutiny of the charge sheet material, it does not disprove the case of the accused that he is not involved in the alleged crime. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when the injured eye witness has also stated that the accused has involved in a serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I feel that this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner.
Hence, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-