IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.584/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri Jagadish @ Jaggi, Aged about 30 years, S/o Late Huliyappa, No.33, 1st Cross, Gundu Thopu, Tavarekere, Bengaluru-562 130. ...Petitioner (By Sri. Sharath S Gogi, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, Through S.G.Palya Police Station, Bengaluru.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001. ...Respondent (By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.56/2018 of Suddaguntepalya Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 109 read with 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner- accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No.56/2018 of Suddaguntepalya Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 109 read with 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased-Kamalamma and her son were tenant under accused No.1 and she had paid an advance of Rs.4,00,000/- at the time of taking the premises on lease. Accused No.1 intended to vacate the deceased from the said premises without repaying the said lease amount. In pursuance of the same, accused No.1 conspired with accused Nos.2 to 5, on 28.02.2018 at about 9:00 p.m., the accused persons proceeded to the house of the deceased, accused No.4 along with other accused persons entered the house of the deceased, at that time, accused No.1 pushed the deceased to the wall and thereafter, assaulted on the neck of the deceased with the knife, as a result of the same, deceased collapsed and breathed her last. On the basis the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that accused Nos.2 to 4 have been already released on bail by this Court, on the ground of parity, accused No.1-petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail, as he is also standing in the similar footings. He further submitted that the motive which has been alleged falsifies the documents which have been collected during the course of investigation, the said lease period was about to expire in the month of January 2019, but it is alleged in the complaint, that it expired four years prior to the alleged incident. He further submitted that there are no specific overt acts alleged as against the petitioner-accused No.1. He further submitted that only with an intention to vacate the premise, a false complaint has been registered against petitioner-accused No.1. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that CW.1 is the daughter of the deceased and she was present when the accused persons entered the house and thereafter, the accused persons assaulted the deceased. She further submitted that it is accused No.1, who assaulted the deceased with knife on her neck and caused bleeding injuries. There are five eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. There are specific overt acts alleged as against the petitioner-accused No.1. The parity ground is not applicable to the present facts of the case on hand to accused No.1. She further submitted that the petitioner-accused No.1 is having criminal antecedents and five other cases have been registered as against him. In this behalf, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the records.
7. On close reading of the charge sheet material which has been made available, clearly goes to show that it is accused No.1, who assaulted the deceased with the knife on her neck, after pushing her to the wall. There are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. Even the ground of parity cannot be applicable to the present facts of the case in favour of the petitioner-
accused No.1. In so far as other accused persons are concerned, there is no specific overt acts alleged against them. In that light, this Court has released the remaining accused persons on bail, but in so far as accused No.1 is concerned, there is a strong motive, there are eye witnesses to the alleged incident and overt acts for having assaulted the deceased with knife. It is accused No.1, who assaulted the deceased and the deceased died due to the said injuries. There is corroboration to the medical records.
Under the said facts and circumstances of the case, I feel, the petitioner-accused No.1 has not made out any good ground to release him on bail.
Accordingly, criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE HA