IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7523/2018 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6883/2018 CRL.P.NO.7523/2018 BETWEEN SRI SURYA PRAKASH @ SURYA, S/O. TAMILARASAN, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1, FOREMEN QUARTERS, CHAMPION REEF, KGF - 563117 NOW RESIDING AT AKASHANAGAR, NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE, B. NARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHAMPION REEF POLICE STATION K.G.F., TALUK : BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.62/2017 OF CHAMPION REEFS P.S., K.G.F DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,144,147,148,114,302,201,212 R/W 149 OF IPC.
CRL.P.NO.6883/2018 BETWEEN 1. SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR @ KALAI, S/O M.KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.50, NEW WEST GILBERT, MARIKUPPAM, K.G.F., KOLAR DISTRICT - 563120.
2. MOHANRAJ @ APPU @ KHAN, S/O.ANANDRAJ, R/O.NO.60, "D" TILE BLOCK, CHAMPION REEF, K.G.F. TALUK : BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563120. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAMPION REEF POLICE STATION, K.G.F. TALUK : BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.62/2017 OF CHAMPION REEFS P.S., K.G.F., KOLAR DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,144,147,148,114,302,201,212 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for respondent-State.
2. These two petitions are filed by accused nos. 3,4 and 5 seeking their release on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
3. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is laid against the petitioners and accused nos. 1 & 2 under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148,114, 201 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP appearing for respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accused nos. 4 and 5 are not named in the FIR and they have been implicated in the alleged offences based on the statement of eye witnesses. A reading of statement of the eye witness clearly indicate that the records have been manipulated. One Umesh who has been cited as eye witness to the incident (CW.3) was examined at the time of inquest proceedings and he did not disclose that he was an eye witness to the incident. Therefore, no credence could be given to his statement. Further he submits, in so far as petitioners are concerned, they did not have any motive to commit the above offence. Further, the investigation is completed and therefore, the custody of the petitioners is not necessary, thus, he prays for release of the petitioners on such terms as this Court deems appropriate.
6. Learned HCGP appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the application and submitted that the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency prima facie establishes the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence. Even if the statement of CW3 is discarded, prosecution has relied on the statement of other eye witnesses namely CW2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. All these witnesses have consistently narrated the overtacts committed by each of the persons including the petitioners herein. All the accused including the petitioners have committed the alleged offence. Having regard to the gravity of the charges, petitioners are not entitled for bail. Hence, he seeks the dismissal of the petition.
7. On considering the submissions made at the Bar and on going through the material on record, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to bail till the conclusion of the trial. Even though it is pointed out that statement of CW.3 is doubtful as to the alleged incident but, the other witnesses examined by the prosecution namely CW.2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have consistently narrated the overtacts committed by each of the accused persons. These statements coupled with the recovery of the weapons and the recovery of blood stained clothes of the petitioners, prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime. That apart, the circumstances of the case clearly suggest a strong motive and premeditation. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow the petitions.
Consequently, the petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- CT-HR