IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7202/2017 Between:
Sri Santhosh Alias Shishya Son of Kumaraswamy Aged about 27 years Resident of No.5, 2nd Cross Church Road Chennanayakanapalya Nagasandra Post Bengaluru- 560 073.
(By Sri Mohan Bhat, Adv.) And The State of Karnataka Represented by Station House Officer Halasuru Gate Police Station Hudson Circle Bengaluru- 560 001.
(By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) ...Petitioner ...Respondent This Crl.P is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.140/2014 (S.C.No.1015/2014) of Halasur Gate Police Station, Bangalore for the offence p/u/s 302 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 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, registered in respondent–police station Crime No.140/2014 and now pending in S.C.No.1015/2014 on the file of 55th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. 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.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made submission that even looking to the prosecution materials, it cannot be said that there is prima-facie case made out against the petitioner to attract the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Learned counsel made submission that though it is the case of the prosecution that there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, looking to their statements, the statement of CW.3 of course recorded at the very same day of the incident, but the statements of other witnesses are recorded on the next day of the incident. He made submission that even if their statements are recorded as to be parties, still it will not make their case that they are said to be eyewitnesses to the incident. Learned counsel also made submission that there was altercation took place between the deceased and the present petitioner in respect of the offering amount of Rs.2/-. He also submitted that the incident took place in the year 2014, the petitioner is in custody and now the trial has already been commenced, there is no chances of the petitioner to tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made submission that CWs.3, 4 and 6 are eyewitnesses to the incident. It is also his submission that while going to the spot, the petitioner carried knife with him and hence, that itself shows the intention on the part of the petitioner to kill the deceased. He also submitted that even the material on record goes to show that there were 9 injuries on the body of the deceased and the doctor has opined that the death is caused due to multiple injuries sustained. Hence, he submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, charge sheet and other materials placed on record and so also, the bail order of the Sessions Judge rejecting the bail petition of the petitioner.
6. Looking to the prosecution materials placed on record, there are eyewitnesses to the incident, who have stated that they have seen the present petitioner assaulting the deceased with knife. Therefore, looking to these materials at this stage the prosecution has placed prima-facie materials about the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner to release him on bail.
7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that since 3 years the petitioner is in judicial custody. Therefore, in view of the said submission, the concerned trial Court is hereby directed to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the same in accordance with law as early as possible. With the above observation, the petition is hereby rejected.
Registry is directed to intimate the same to the concerned Court immediately.
Sd/- JUDGE DL