IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8821 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Sri Nagaraju, S/o.Late Chikkathimmaiah, Aged about 54 years, R/at Kenchankuppe, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk. ... Petitioner (By Sri D.Mohan Kumar, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Bidadi Police Station, Ramanagara, By its Special Public Prosecutor. ...Respondent (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.114/2017 of Bidadi Police Station, Ramanagara and in S.C.No.71/2017 pending on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and etc.
This criminal petition, coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This is the petition filed by petitioner accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station in Crime No.114/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the presence of the petitioner at the said place may not be disputed at this stage. But looking to the factual story of the case, at the most offence falls under Section 304 Part II and not under Section 302 IPC. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decisions which are filed along with the memo dated 13.12.2017. Hence, submitted, by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioner may be enlarged on bail as the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader prays for dismissal of the petition on the ground that there are totally 10 external injuries and these external injuries included scar on the face and head of the deceased. He also made the submission that he carried the machu and he eliminated the deceased who is the mother of the complainant by assaulting her repeatedly. Hence, he submitted that there is intention to commit murder of the deceased. Therefore, the materials produced at this stage attracts the alleged offence under Section 302 IPC and not under Section 304 Part II IPC. Hence he submits to reject the bail petition.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced n the case.
6. The complainant is an eyewitness to the incident. Looking to the contents of the complaint, it reveals that she has seen the incident through window and the assault made by the accused on the deceased. There are also other 3 eyewitnesses to the incident.
Looking to the postmortem report, the Doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead-body noticed 10 external injuries over the dead-body of the deceased. The petitioner was taking machu with him and even looking to his Section 164 statement before the Magistrate Court, it is seen that he has admitted his presence at the said place. Looking to these materials produced in the case they prima-facie goes to show that the alleged offence under Section 302 will be attracted. At this stage, when there are direct witnesses to the incident, it is not a case for exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
8. However, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest, the concerned Trial Court is hereby directed to take up the matter on priority basis and dispose of the same as early as possible.
Cm/-
Sd/- JUDGE