IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.162/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri. Suresh @ Boosa, S/o. Karihanumaiah, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Cooli, R/at No. Kethohalli Village, Thavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk – 562 130. (By Sri. M.R. Balakrishna, Advocate) AND:
The State by Tavarekere Police Station, Magadi Circle, Ramanagara District, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) ...Petitioner ... Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.181/2018 of Tavarekere Police Station, Ramanagara District for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail in Crime No.181/2018 (S.C. No.75/2018) of Tavarekere Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that on 08.06.2018 at about 8.00 p.m., Huchappa and Chikkahuchaiah were speaking with regard to the chit amount of Goddess Mullakattamma. At that point of time, accused No.1 came there and under the guise that both of them were speaking with regard to his matter, he by holding the head of Huchappa hit the same to the floor and Huchappa sustained injuries on his head. The said Huchappa was cultivating property in Sy. No.52 measuring 2 acre 38 guntas. Accused No.1 called said Huchappa and his wife-Narasamma (complainant) to Bengaluru to the office of one Umashankar and taken their signature to an agreement stating that he will give Rs.17 lakhs. To avoid the payment of Rs.17 lakhs, at the instance of Umashankar, accused No.1 has made Huchappa to sustain injuries on his head and caused the death of the deceased. On the basis of the complaint, a case came to be registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged incident has taken place on 08.06.2018 and the complaint has been registered on 11.06.2018, there is four days delay in filing the complaint. It is further submitted that no deadly weapons have been used while commission of the said offences. Further it is submitted that the witnesses have been recorded belatedly and even as per the records, notice issued by the police indicates the fact that the deceased sustained the injuries due to the health fault. Subsequently, the statement of Kadresh and Rupesh have been recorded therein, the explanation has been obtained. It is further submitted that Umashankar, who has been arrayed as an accused, has been dropped while filing the charge sheet, there are so many contradictions and omissions in the complaint. Further it is submitted that if the entire material is taken into consideration, there is a doubt with regard to the causing of death of the deceased by the accused petitioner. It is further submitted that already the charge sheet has been filed and at the most, the entire charge sheet material if it is looked into, the said offence will fall under the provisions of Section 304 Part I or II of IPC. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent -State vehemently argued and submitted that the accused petitioner with an intention to cause the death has hit the head of the deceased to the floor. As a result, he succumbed to the injuries. It is further submitted that there are eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and post mortem report corroborates with the statement of the eye-witnesses and the complainant has also categorically stated that it is accused petitioner, who hit the head to the floor as a result of the same, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and the alleged offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is contradiction in the complaint and the statement given by the witnesses that is the matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. At the time of considering the bail applications, the contradictions, omissions and other things need not be looked into. On close reading of the charge sheet material, it indicates that there are six eye-witnesses and they have categorically stated that the accused came and questioned the deceased thereafter, the accused hit the head to the floor. As a result of the same, he sustained injuries and immediately, he was shifted to the hospital and there he succumbed to the injuries. Even the Post Mortem report corroborates with the opinion that death is due to COMA as a result of head injury sustained. The alleged offence is under Section 302 of IPC, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, under such circumstances, that too, when there are eye- witnesses to the alleged incident, it is not a fit case to consider the bail application. Though during the course of argument, it is contended that there was no intention and provisions of Section 302 are not attracted, that is the matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial but not at this pre-matured stage. That too, while considering the bail application, this Court cannot express whether it falls under Section 304 Part I or II of IPC. Under the said facts and circumstance, I feel that there are no good grounds to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS