IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7730/2017 BETWEEN:
Sri. Koushik, S/o Lokesh, Aged about 24 years, No.82, 5th Cross, Munnekolala, Marathalli Post, Bengaluru – 560 037.
(By Sri.Yogesh Kumar V.S., Adv.) AND:
The State represented by Marathahalli Police, Bengaluru, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
…Petitioner ….Respondent (By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.359/2017 of Marathahalli Police station, Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 302, 307, 324, 504 and 506 R/W 149 of IPC.
This criminal petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 as per the ranking given based on the remand application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent – police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station, Crime No.359/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.6.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that looking to the original FIR so also the complaint, the name of the present petitioner is not figured. It is also his submission that subsequently the 7th person has been arrested, he is one Mr.Vasu Reddy N. @ Vasudev Reddy. The learned counsel made the submission that whatever the statement given by said Vasudeva Reddy, the co-accused is not binding on the petitioner herein. The learned counsel also made the submission that though there are serious allegations against the accused Nos.1 and 2, they have already granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that so far as the petitioner is concerned, absolutely there is no material on the side of the prosecution to show his involvement in committing the alleged offences. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, he may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that looking to the prosecution material one of the injured by name Ajmel, he gave the statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C.
before the Magistrate Court wherein he has clearly stated about the presence so also the assault made by present petitioner Koushik also.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader further made the submission that so far as the order of the learned Sessions Judge is concerned absolutely there is no reference so far as 164 statement is concerned. Therefore, he made the submission that there is prima facie material about the involvement of the Koushik, present petitioner also. Therefore custodial interrogation of him is required and he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint therein, copies of the remand application filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the memo along with bail orders by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of accused Nos.1 and 2.
7. Looking to the material as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.6 in the original complaint, the name of the present petitioner is not mentioned so also FIR also not registered in his name and I have perused the voluntary statement of accused – Vasu Reddy N. @ Vasudev Reddy who has been subsequently arrested, wherein he has taken the name of the present petitioner Koushik also in the alleged incident.
8. I have perused the statement of one Ajmel, who is also the victim and injured in the case. Looking to his 164 statement given before the Magistrate Court on oath, he has clearly stated that alongwith other accused persons, petitioner was also present and he also assaulted the deceased and caused injuries not only that what has happened and what is the say made by the police to him is also disclosed in the said statement.
9. Considering these aspects of the matter and perusing the order of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the grant of bail for petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, as it is rightly submitted by the High Court Government Pleader, there is no reference of 164 statement of the Ajmel, the victim/injured witness himself. Considering these matters placed on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is also required in the case.
10. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
11. Since, the main petition is disposed of, the question of considering the I.A.No.1/2017 does not arise at all.
Sd/- JUDGE MH/-