IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4520/2019 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3094/2019 Crl.P. No.4520/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri Aravind K.T. @ Babu, S/o Thimmareddy, Aged about 23 years, R/at No.05, Lakshmi Narsimha Swamy PG, 30th Main, Near Ejjipura Signal, Ejjipura, Kormangala, Bengaluru. ... Petitioner (By Sri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Bommanahalli Police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri Honnappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.299/2018 of Bommanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences p/u/s 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Sections 25(1-B) (b) 27 r/w Section 4 of Arms Act.
Crl.P. No.3094/2019 BETWEEN:
Muniswamy @ Muniya @ Appu, S/o Rajappa, Aged about 19 years, R/at No.1, C/o Munireddy, Near Narasimhaswamy Temple, Narasimhaswamy Layout, Hongasandra, Bommanahalli, Bangalore City – 560 102. … Petitioner (By G.M. Srinivasareddy, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, R/by Bommanahalli Police Station, Through State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.299/2018 of Bommanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences p/u/s 302, 143, 144, 147, 148 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Sections 25(1-B) (b) 27 r/w Section 4 of Arms Act.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Crl.P No.4520/2019 is filed by accused no.5 in S.C.No.414/2019 now pending on the file of LVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57) and Crl.P No.3094/2019 is filed by accused No.6 in C.C.No.4062/2019 now pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.299/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 25 (1-B) (b), 27 r/w 4 of the Arms Act.
2. The brief facts of the case as emanated from the charge sheet papers are that the deceased Manjunath was murdered by Prasadi. When accused no.1 Abdul Jaleel @ Jarika was in jail, the said Manjunath who was also in jail was often quarrelling with accused no.1 and he was also giving threat to accused no.1 because he was friend of one Mr. Prasadi. Thereafter, it appears the deceased Manjunath as well as accused no.1 came out from the jail and thereafter also they were not in good terms and as and when opportunity comes they used to quarrel with each other. In this context, accused no.1 has suspected that if they allow Manjunath to continue the same, he may get an opportunity to kill accused no.1. Therefore, accused no.1 hatched conspiracy with accused nos.2 to 6 and decided to do away with life of deceased Manjunath. In this background, it is alleged that on 05.11.2018 in the night hours at about 10.00 p.m., they had met in CNR Bar situated at Kodi Chikkanahalli within the jurisdiction of Bommanahalli Police Station. They consumed alcohol and at about 11.15 p.m., galata started between the accused persons and the deceased Manjunath. In this context, it is alleged that at about 12.00 p.m., in the night, all the accused persons who were holding deadly weapons like longs, choppers etc., attacked deceased Manjunath and mercilessly assaulted the deceased, due to which he succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot itself. On the above said allegations, the police have investigated the matter and laid the charge sheet.
3. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that this case rests on circumstantial evidence and there is no specific recovery from accused nos.5 and 6 and no overt acts are attributed to accused nos.5 and 6. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt during the course of evidence and an omnibus statement is made at this stage. Therefore, the accused are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, the learned HCGP submits that there are two eyewitnesses to the incident. Their statement is immediately recorded on the next day i.e., on 06.11.2018. The two eyewitnesses namely Santhosh Kumar and Chethan have categorically stated about the involvement of the accused persons and also identified the accused persons in the Police Station soon after the accused persons were arrested. Therefore, it is a case where eyewitnesses are there and therefore, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
5. On careful examination of the papers filed, I find that the eyewitnesses have categorically stated that they were very much present on 05.11.2018. Though the eyewitnesses were not having knowledge of accused persons, but they have seen six persons at that time assaulting the deceased Manjunath with long, choppers etc. On the date of arrest of accused persons also, the witnesses were secured to the police station and they have specifically given the exact role of the accused persons as per earlier statement made by them.
6. In the above said circumstances, when the eyewitnesses have seen the commission of offence and when they were present at the scene of occurrence, it is not safe to release the accused persons. Though there is an omnibus statement made, though the witnesses were not having knowledge of the accused persons, but subsequently, they have involved these two accused persons by implicating their role. The Doctor has also opined that the death was due to shock as a result of multiple injures.
Therefore, under the above said circumstances, I do not find any reasons to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Hence, both the petitions are liable to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed.
Np/-
Sd/- JUDGE