IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5922/2017 BETWEEN SRI STEVAN VANDIS D’SOUZA S/O. LATE LAWRENE D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT KAJE HOUSE, KUKKUNDOOR POST KASBA VILLAGE, KARKALA (BY SRI B.V. PINTO, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA KARKALA TOWN P.S., BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-560 001 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCTP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.99/2017 OF KARKALA TOWN POLICE STATION, UDUPI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 & 201 READ WITH 34 OF I.P.C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed a memo submitting that the name of the petitioner was spelled as Steven in the lower Court. Hence, he sought the permission to correct the name in the petition accordingly.
2. In view of the said memo, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the name of the petitioner in the cause title of the petition.
3. This is the petition filed by the accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., registered by the respondent-Police in Crime No. 99/2017.
4. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that one Victor Lobo filed a complaint alleging that on 07.05.2017, at about 2.15 p.m., at Kaje Kasba Village, Kukkandoor Taluk, when the petitioner and his wife were in their house petitioner’s brother-deceased Ivan D’souza came to the house fully drunken and started quarrel for money from the petitioner. At that time it is alleged that, the petitioner stabbed the deceased on his stomach. Petitioner, his wife and the complainant took the deceased to the Karkala Nursing Home, from there, he was taken to Manipal Hospital. However the said Ivan succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered for the aforesaid offences.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 so also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the materials placed on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that, looking to the complaint averments itself there is no motive or previous enmity. The deceased as well as the petitioner are the brothers. He also made the submission that the complaint averments go to show that the deceased was in the habit of consuming alcohol whenever he use to come to house and the picking up quarrels. Learned counsel submitted that because the deceased came in drunken state picked up quarrel with the petitioner, there were exchange of words between two and suddenly petitioner alleged to have brought a knife from the kitchen and assaulted on the stomach portion of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the incident is because of the grave and sudden provocation and the act is not pre-meditated. Hence, he submitted that at the most the offence may fall under Section 304 of I.P.C. and not Section 302. It is his further submission that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, Accused No.2 is already enlarged on bail by the order of this Court.
7. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the place where injuries are inflicted with the knife is a vital part of the body i.e. stomach portion. Learned HCGP further made the submission that going of the petitioner inside the kitchen to bring knife itself goes to show that the petitioner was having intention to commit the murder of the deceased. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted bail.
8. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, F.I.R., Complaint and other materials produced by the petitioner along with the petition. Looking to the complaint averments it is clear that the deceased came to the house in drunken state and there was a quarrel in between petitioner and the deceased. The complaint averment also goes to show that in the middle of quarrel the present accused went inside the kitchen, brought the knife and assaulted deceased on the stomach portion and there is only one injury. But looking to the time factor and the exchange of words in between two, and deceased, goes to the house in drunken state, if the case is appreciated in the background of all these facts learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in making submission at this stage that prima facie even after the case of the prosecution is accepted at the most it may fall under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., which is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Accused No.2 is already granted bail by the order of this Court. Investigation is complete. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner/accused No.1.
9. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.99/2017 registered by the respondent-police, subject to the following conditions:
i) He shall execute self bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii) He shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii) He shall appear before the concerned regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs*