IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.6567/2019 Between:
Sri Harish T., S/o Thayappa, Aged about 24 years, R/A Bahddur Pura, 23rd Ward, Anekal Town, Bangalore Urban District – 562 130. … Petitioner (By Sri Ranganath Reddy R., Advocate) And:
State by Anekal Police Station, Bangalore Rural Represented by State Public Prosecutor, (High Court of Karnataka), Bangalore – 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.77/2019 of Anekal Police Stattion, Bengaluru City for the offences p/u/s 143, 147, 382 r/w 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER The petitioner/ accused No.1 is seeking to be enlarged on bail consequent to his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.77/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections.143, 147, 302 r/w 149 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.3 was owning a Tea Shop. With respect to payments made to accused No.3 there was an altercation between the deceased and accused No.3. It is further submitted that the accused and the deceased met once again in order to settle the dispute and during such altercation the deceased was done to death.
3. It is submitted that on 13/04/2019 at about 9.00 a.m, accused persons had gone to the house of the deceased armed with choppers and clubs. In order to escape from the clutches of the accused, the deceased went to the house of C.W.4 and locked himself from inside. However, all the accused have entered into the said house through another door of the house and assaulted the deceased.
4. Investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. The charge sheet would indicate that the wounds inflicted by machete have been attributed to accused Nos.1 and 2.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that post mortem report would indicate that death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple chop injuries sustained. It is submitted that the case primarily rests on the evidence of C.W.2, C.W.3 and C.W.4. It is submitted that the statements of C.W.2, C.W.3 were recorded on 19/06/2019 after a delay of 66 days while that of C.W.4 was recorded on 04/07/2019 after delay of 84 days. It is further submitted that in the inquest report though there is a mention that the body was found in the house of C.W.4, no reason is forthcoming as to why the statement of C.W.4 was not recorded immediately. It is further submitted that C.W.2 and C.W.3 are stated to be friends of the deceased and there is no satisfactory explanation that is forthcoming with respect to the delay in recording the statement of the witnesses.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1624-1625/2013. He further submits that the case rests on the evidence of C.W.2 –Sandeep and C.W.3 – Charan. It is pointed out that the statements do not impute specific overt acts either to accused No.1 or to accused No.2. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is a student studying B.Com. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the application and rejected the same before charge sheet has been filed.
7. Learned HCGP would point out that the recovery of machete was at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. It is further submitted that primary implication is as regards accused No.1 and accordingly opposes grant of bail.
8. It is to be noticed that admittedly there has been delay of 66 days in recording the statement of C.W.2 and C.W.3 and 84 days delay in recording the statement of C.W.4. It is not in dispute that the body was recovered from the house of C.W.4 – Venkatalakshamma and her name is mentioned in the inquest report, but delay of more than 60 days in recording the statement of C.W.2, C.W.3 as well as C.W.4 is a matter to be kept in mind. Even on a perusal of the statements of C.W.2, C.W.3 and C.W.4, recorded under Sections 161 of the Cr.P.C, the overt acts that are attributed to the accused, there is a general imputation as regards all the accused. The role of each of the accused in the crime is to be established during the trial. Accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have been enlarged on bail by this Court. Accused No.5 has been enlarged on bail by order dated 24/10/2019 in Criminal Petition No.6446/2019 while accused Nos.4 and 6 have been enlarged on bail by order dated 05/11/2019 in Criminal Petition No.6206/2019. The Court while enlarging the said accused on bail has indeed referred to the aspect of delay in recording the statement of witnesses. Accused No.1 is also a student studying B.Com. This aspect of the matter has been adverted to in detail while passing the order in Criminal Petition No. 4413/2019. There are no criminal antecedents as regards the petitioner.
In light of the contentions raised, considering the aspect of delay in recording the statement of witnesses and also on a perusal of statements of C.W.2 and C.W.3 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and also noting the present proceedings cannot be treated to be punitive in nature and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is pursuing ‘B.Com.’ course, it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to the following conditions;
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) Petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e. in the first week of every month before the jurisdictional S.H.O.
iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
(v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu