IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.6697 OF 2019 BETWEEN Sri. Mahesha D. @ Kirana S/o Dundegowda Aged about 29 years Residing at No.202 2nd Stage, Ambedkar Nagara Bengaluru – 560085.
(By Sri. C.Rajanna, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka By Srirangpatna Police Station Srirangapatna Taluk Mandya District Represented by its P.P. High Court Building Bengaluru -01.
(By Sri. M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) ... Petitioner ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.261/2018 of Srirangapatna Rural Police Station, Mandya for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 109, 341, 120(B), 201, 302 149 of IPC and Section 2(C), 27(1) of Arms Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the court made by the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by accused no.7 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Cr.No.261/2018 of Srirangapatna Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 109, 341, 120(B), 201, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and also under Section 2(C), 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. The gist of the complaint reveals that in Crl.P.No.672/2019 dated 18.04.2019:
“3. The gist of the complaint reveals that on 11.08.2018 on account of Bheemana Amavase, deceased Arasaiah had visited Sri.Gurudev Mahakali Temple, situated at T.M.Hosuru Gate and had arranged Homa and pooja rituals in the said temple. Said Arasaiah summoned the complainant to his village on 10.08.2018 and on 11.08.2018 at 8.30 a.m., came to the said temple in a car bearing Registration No.KA-51/P.5695. After finishing the pooja rituals at about 3.30 p.m., all the said persons started proceeding in the said car and it was driven by the deceased Arasaiah and the other witnesses were sitting in the rear seat. When they came forward to some distance, at about 3.45 p.m., three cars came to the spot and about 15 to 20 persons accosted the car holding longs and chopper and made the car to stop. When Arasaiah stopped the car, the said persons attacked him with longs and chopper and when Arasaiah tried to take the car reverse, but the said assailants hit him and caused grievous injuries, after throwing the longs and chopper they fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the complainant took the injured to Colombia Asia Hospital, Mysuru and there at about 8.00 p.m., on the same day, doctor declared him as dead because of the injuries. On the basis of a complaint, a case has been registered”.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner /accused no.3 that earlier he has approached this court in Crl.P.672/2019, but only on the ground the petitioner /accused is a rowdy sheeter the bail has been rejected. It is his further submission that accused no.3 was also constituted as a rowdy sheeter, but this court by order dated 24.09.2019 in Crl.P.No.6592/2019 has released the petitioner/accused on bail on the ground that no prima facie case has been made out as against the accused though he has been stated that he is a rowdy sheeter. It is his further submission that on the ground of parity, the petitioner /accused no.7 is entitled to be released on bail. It is his further submission that the petitioner/accused is not having any over acts and he was the driver of the car at the time of the alleged incident and the only submission that has been made is that the accused/petitioner has obstructed the car of the deceased and at that time the remaining accused persons went and assaulted the accused. He is ready to abide by any of the conditions imposed by this court and ready to offer sureties. On this ground, he prays for allowing the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argues and submits that there are no cogent material to show that accused no.7 was the driver and he has stopped the car of the deceased and as a result of the same, he was unable to move out of the car. Accused no.1 to 6 assaulted the deceased and have committed the murder of the deceased. He further submitted that the charge sheet has been lodged against the accused persons including offence under Section 34 of IPC to show that with a common intention accused petitioner committed alleged offences. Under such circumstances, also accused/petitioner is liable for conviction. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records and the order passed by the coordinate bench in Crl.P.No.6592/2019. Admittedly the factual matrix goes to show that the petitioner/accused no.7 was the driver of the car and he obstructed the car of the deceased and as a result of the same, accused no.1 to 6 have got down from the car and went out of the car and there they assaulted the deceased with lethal weapons. In so far as accused no.7 is concerned that he was the driver of the car only on that ground earlier bail application has been dismissed. There are no serious allegations made as against petitioner. Even under similar facts and circumstances accused no.3 has been released on bail by the coordinate Bench. On the ground of parity the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail.
6. In that light this criminal petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused no.7 is ordered to be released on bail in Cr.No.261/18 of Srirangapatna Rural Police for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 109, 341, 120(B), 201, 302 read with Section 149 IPC and also under Section 2(C), 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959 with the following conditions.
1. The petitioner/accused no.7 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till trial is concluded.
3. He shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 1st of every month between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the concerned police station, till the trial is concluded.
4. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
5. He shall regularly appear before the trial Court for trial, without fail.
Sd/- JUDGE sd