IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7427/2017 BETWEEN:
Sri Raveesh S/o Ramakrishnaiah Aged about 21 years R/at Needavalpalya Hebburu Hobli Tumkur Taluk and District. ... PETITIONER (By Sri Siddamallappa, Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka by Byadarahalli Police Bangalore.
Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bangalore-560 001. ...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 Cr.No.124/2017 of Byadarahalli P.S., Ramanagara, for the offences P/U/Ss 302 and 307 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.124/2017.
2. The case of the prosecution is, the In-charge of D.Devaraj Arasu Backward Class Boys Hostel, Anjananagar, Bangalore has filed the complaint alleging that on 23.3.2017 there was a scuffle between the petitioner and one Rohith and Amaresh of the said hostel since petitioner was passing urine without closing the door of the bathroom When the same was questioned by Rohit and Amaresh, the scuffle ensured and the petitioner herein became furious and went to his room and brought knife and assaulted on the neck of Rohit. When Amaresh intervened, he was also assaulted with the knife and caused injures. They were shifted to Hospital. The complainant and cook of the hostel by name Shekar went to the hospital and found that Rohit died in the Victoria Hospital while under treatment.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that there was no intention or preparation or motive on the part of the petitioner to commit the alleged offence. Because of exchange of words, at the spur of the moment the alleged incident has taken place. He has also submitted that he is the student. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that it is the intentional act on the part of the petitioner. When the scuffle took place he has not left the scuffle there itself, but he went back to his room, brought the knife and assaulted the deceased and also the injured who went to the rescue of the deceased. He has submitted that there are eyewitnesses to the incident. The other students who are studying in the said hostel are also having apprehension with regard to this incident. Hence, it is not a fit case for grant of bail.
6. Perusing the prosecution material it is seen that there are eyewitnesses to the incident. The materials prima facie show when the scuffle started by exchange of words, petitioner went inside his room and brought the knife and assaulted two persons with the said knife. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since from the date of arrest the petitioner is in custody, the concerned Sessions Court is hereby directed to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the same as early as possible.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp