IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5111/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri. P. Harish, S/o. Pillappa, Aged about 29 years, R/at. Rachamanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru -562 106. …Petitioner (By Sri. M. Srinivasaiah, Advocate) AND The State of Karnataka By Anekal Police Station, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru -562 106. …Respondent (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.234/2018 of Anekal Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 302, r/w Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/Accused No.2 under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.234/2018 of Anekal Police Station, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that there were civil disputes between the accused and the complainant and on 30.08.2018 at about 5.45 p.m., Thimmaraju along with Lalithamma, Chennappa, Harish, Ravichandra, Harish (Aravantipura) and Chasthamanahalli Naveen came in a group and obstructed the movement of complainant’s husband and stopped the two wheeler and some altercation took place. At that time, P. Harish and C. Harish assaulted the complainant with long and caused injuries. Immediately, the complainant took him to the Government Hospital, Anekal and thereafter, he was shifted to Sparsha Hospital. There the complainant came to know that because of the injuries her husband died. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 that already charge sheet has been filed and accused Nos.3, 4, and 6 have been enlarged on bail. Under similar facts and circumstances, the petitioner/accused No.2 is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
5. It is his further submission that alleged incident has taken place on 30.08.2018 at about 5.45 p.m. but the death of the deceased took place on 24.09.2018. There are no serious overt-acts against the petitioner/accused-2. He further submitted that the only eye witness is CW33. In his statement also he has not specifically stated the overt-acts of the petitioner/accused -2. The said submission cannot be relied upon since, the said statement has been recorded on 05.12.2018 though the alleged incident is taken place on 30.08.2018. He further submitted that if really he has seen the alleged incident he could have immediately disclosed the fact to any of the nearby police station. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.2 is ready to offer sureties and ready to abide by any conditions that this Court may impose. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that petitioner/accused No.2 being a member of unlawful assembly with common intention went along with other accused persons. It is the petitioner/accused No.2 who assaulted the deceased with long on the head of the deceased. The deceased died due to the head injuries. There is a prima facie material as against the petitioner/accused No.2. If the petitioner/accused No.2 is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and he cannot be available for further investigation. Hence, on these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.
8. On close reading of the statement of the eye witness it discloses that it is accused No.2 who assaulted with long on the head of the deceased and serious overt-
acts have been alleged as against the petitioner/accused No.2 for having used the long and assaulted the deceased on his head and even the postmortem report also substantiate the said contention. It is the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the long has been recovered on the instance of accused No.2. It also corroborates the act of the accused. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 that already accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 have been enlarged on bail, on the ground of parity the petitioner/accused No.2 is also entitled for the relief of bail. But it is also seen from the charge sheet that serious overt-act and allegations have been made as against the petitioner/accused No.2 and it is he who assaulted with lethal weapon on the head of the deceased and caused the death of the deceased.
Under such facts and circumstances, the grant of bail cannot be extended to petitioner/accused No.2. There are no grounds to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail.
Hence, the criminal petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE BVK