IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.80 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Sri C Harish S/o Chikkannayya, Aged about 26 years, Residing at, Karpuru Janatha Colony, Aravantigepura, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District – 562106. ...Petitioner (By Sri.Rudrappa P, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Anekal Police Station, Bengaluru District Bengaluru – 562106.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Bengaluru – 560001. ... Respondent (By Sri.M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.234/2018 (C.C.No.1835/2018) of Anekal Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 504, 302, 114, 109 read with 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., to release him on bail in Crime No.234/2018 of Anekal Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 504, 302, 114, 109 read with 149 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent/state.
3. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that there were civil disputes between the accused and the complainant and on 30.08.2018 at about 5.45 p.m., Thimmaraju along with Lalithamma, Chennappa, Harish, Ravichandra, Harish (Aravantipura) and Chasthamanahalli Naveen came in a group and obstructed the movement of complainant’s husband and stopped the two wheeler and some altercation took place. At that time, the said P.Harish and C.Harish assaulted the complainant with long and caused injuries. Immediately, the complainant took him to the Government Hospital, Anekal and thereafter, he was shifted to Sparsha Hospital. There, the complainant came to know that because of the injuries, her husband died. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier a charge sheet has been filed and subsequently, second charge sheet has been filed. Therein, the position of the accused Nos.1 and 2 has been changed and they have been show as accused No.4 and 5. He further submitted that the civil disputes are pending between accused No.1 and the deceased. Because of the said civil disputes, the petitioner/accused has been falsely implicated in the cases. He further submitted that already charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner/accused is not required for further investigation and interrogation. No specific overt acts have also been stated by the said witnesses. Earlier, only Munikrishnappa has shown as eye witness but in the second charge sheet, three more eye witnesses have been shown that itself clearly goes to show that police have falsely implicated the petitioner/accused. He further submitted that there are no specific overt acts as against the petitioner and his mother is also suffering from ailments and wife is also having health issues. Since eight months, he is languishing in jail. If bail is granted, he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused is involved in series offences. There are four eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Already, charge sheet has been filed and the material produced clearly goes to show that the specific overt acts have been alleged as against the petitioner/accused No.4. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 has assaulted with long and the deceased has sustained 12 injuries and Post Mortem Report also goes to show that the deceased died because of the injuries caused by lethal weapons. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the statement of the eye witness – Munikrishna and on close reading of the said statement, it is one P.Harisha who took out a long from two wheeler and assaulted on the deceased. At that time, it is one C.Harisha who also took out long and assaulted the deceased and as a result, he sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, he died in the hospital. There are specific overt acts alleged against the petitioner/accused. He has been implicated in the case falsely cannot be accepted. When there are eye witnesses to the alleged incident and petitioner/accused is involved in series offences which are punishable with death or imprisonment for life, I feel that it is not a fit case to release the petitioner/accused on bail. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE NBM