IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 3815/2019 BETWEEN SRI. ARJUN (A-3) S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NO. 1065/A/15 9TH MAIN VIJAY BANK LAYOUT DEVARA CHIKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD BILEKAHALLI BENGALURU-76 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. R. NANJUDA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. P. YOGANNA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO. 83/2019 OF MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (A3) and the learned HCGP for the Respondent –State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.3 in Crime No. 83/2019 registered by the respondent-MICO Layout Police for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC.
3. The allegations made by the complainant- Jagannath @ Jaggu- against the petitioner (A3) in brief are that, the deceased Manjunath @ Manja is a friend of the complainant since six months and often both of them were meeting each other either in the house of the complainant or in the house of the deceased. It is alleged that on 29.04.2019 at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased Manjunath called the complainant and the complainant went near the house of Manjunath, and thereafter, both of them went to a building under construction near RTO office. There, the deceased Manjunath opened 90 ml. liquor bottle to have liquor and told the complainant to accompany him for the purpose of consuming liquor, at that time, a person came there and called the deceased Manjunath to go over to the first floor of the said building. When the complainant and the deceased went to the first floor, they found four persons ie., A1 to A4 and they in fact started assaulting the deceased Manjunath on the allegation that about 15 days back, the deceased Manjunath has stared at the said accused persons. In this context, it is alleged that all the accused persons have assaulted the deceased and out of them, one person has assaulted the deceased with a bottle on the head and also dashed the head of the Manjunath to a wall, which caused severe injury, and other persons have also assaulted Manjunath and the complainant with their hands. Thereafter, the injured was admitted to the hospital and he died due to the injuries.
4. Further, a statement was recorded by the police so far as the complaint is concerned after the arrest of the accused persons. Thereafter, in the Police Station, the complainant has identified the accused persons 1 to 4 and stated about the overt acts done by the accused. He has stated that, this petitioner (A3) has also assaulted the deceased with his hands on his stomach and face. However, Accused No.1-Madhu has assaulted the deceased with a bear bottle on the face and on the head of the deceased and also dashed the head of the deceased to a wall and thereby Manjunath sustained severe injuries.
5. Looking to the above circumstances, in a spur of moment after the verbal altercation, the incident has taken place between the deceased and the complainant on one side and the accused persons on the other side, and thereafter the said quarrel followed by assaulting the deceased. Further allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.3 is that he assaulted the deceased with his hands. At this stage, common intention sofar as petitioner (A3) is concerned, cannot be fully inferred because, it is very difficult to infer such common intention as to whether the petitioner (A3) knew that Accused No.1 would kill the deceased Manjunath and actively participate in the said incident. All these aspects have to be unearthed during the course of the evidence before the court. Further added to that, whether the accused persons knew that the deceased would go to that particular place is also a fact to be considered by the trial Court during the trial, in order to ascertain common intention. Therefore, common intention cannot be inferred in the said overt act of the petitioner (A3) and if that is taken into consideration, he has assaulted the deceased with his hands and he has not caused any harm or severe injury on the deceased and it is Accused No.1-Madhu who has actually caused severe injuries on the face and head of the deceased. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances and the overt acts of the petitioner, it is just and necessary to release the petitioner on bail. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner (A3) was arrested on 01.05.2019 and since then he has been in judicial custody. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner (A3)- Arjuna shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 83/2019 of MICO Layout Police Station, registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.34 of IPC, on following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted for any genuine reasons by the Court.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*