IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.883/2017 BETWEEN SRI DINESHA S/o MANICKAM AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/AT No.1037, 3RD CROSS KOLIFARM LAYOUT UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK- 562 006.
(By Sri K V BYRESH, ADVOCATE FOR Sri KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANNERUGHATTA POLICE STATION ANEKAL TALUK BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU – 560 001.
(By Sri B J ESHWARAPPA, HCGP) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN (C.C.No.1866/2016) CR.No.132/2016 OF BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 392, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner is absent and his junior Sri K.V.Byresh, learned counsel sought time and the same was refused and the matter is taken up for disposal.
2. Heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-Police.
3. A criminal case is registered against the petitioner and another in Cr.No.132/2016 by the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 392, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. The complainant Ganesh S/o Pandyian is a driver settled in Karnataka for the past 8 years. He married Indrani 8 years back and begot two children Rajakirthi and Spoorthi aged 7 and 1 year/s respectively. Sabari Girish is the younger brother of his wife. On 29.07.2016, at 9.00 a.m. Ganesh was driving his auto KA 02 AD 9215 near AMC College, Bannerughatta road, Bengaluru. Police Dinesh came and said to have informed the complainant that Sabari Girish’s dead body was abandoned after murder and complainant was required to identify. The complainant and his friend-relative Balaraju went to Thulip Resort at 9.20 a.m. and found that the dead body was of his brother-in-law Sabari Girish. Sabari Girish is said to be the 3rd son for his father and first two being Indrani and Manjunath. Sabari Girish was also said to be an auto driver. He never used to return home on certain days. On 28.07.2016, he did not return home and the complainant and others thought that he would have been engaged in auto driving. It is also stated that earlier there was a clash between Dinesha and Sabari Girish in the matter of parking the auto at poultry farm auto stand. The said Dinesha and his friend Sharathkumar were asked not to park their autos at the said poultry farm gate. This matter was informed to Balaraju, the friend of the complainant, who claims that he had come to know that there was a quarrel between the said persons including Sabari Girish. On investigation, it was revealed that accused No.1 Sharathkumar at 9.00 a.m. went to Sabari Girish and told him that auto was required for transporting three gas cylinders on hire and took Sabari Girish to Sakalawar road wherein, the said Dinesha was already stationed. On reaching the spot, Sharathkumar asked Sabari Girish to turn the auto as the boy with cylinders was present there. Dinesha, who was right there, gave the knife to Sharathkumar and the latter stabbed Sabari Girish on back, chest, stomach, near left eye and Dinesha hit him with chopper. Thus, Sabari Girish was done to death. It is stated that the accused-Sharathkumar and Dinesha were arrested and they have confessed as well. The petitioner in this case is accused No.2.
5. As stated above, competition and rivalry were said to have existed between Sabari Girish and both the accused persons. And, the prosecution claims that because of the said rivalry, unnatural death of Sabari Girish was said to have caused by the accused. Objects like red and cement colour Jerkins, blood stained pant, white baniyan, white bucket are said to have been seized at the instance of the petitioner in this case, whereas a black colour stripe shirt, blood stained pant and a baniyan from the other accused.
6. This court has perused the voluntary statement of the accused Nos.1 and 2.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the bail application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, in Crl. Misc. No. 5574/2016, regard being had to the fact that there were no material circumstances that could be interfered with. It is true that the final report is being filed completing the investigation when the petitioner was in judicial custody. At the same time, nature of materials-weapons that were said to have been used for committing the offence and the blood stained clothes that are recovered are also to be considered. Mere completion of investigation and filing of the charge sheet cannot be a deciding factor for enlarging the petitioner-accused No.2 on bail at this stage. However, petitioner-accused No.2 may have the opportunity of moving a bail application after the examination of CWs.1 and 2.
The criminal petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE mv