IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4229/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri Vijay @ Vijaya Kumar S/o Padmaraj, Aged about 22 years, R/at Marsur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk Bengaluru Rural District – 562106.
(By Sri Rajanna B.C., Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka By Attibele Police Station Anekal Taluk, Represented by Special Public Prosecution High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) …Petitioner ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.264/2017 (C.C.No.1790/2017) of Attibele Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence P/U/S 302, 203 read with Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.264/2017 of Attibele Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 203 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the brother of the deceased filed a complaint alleging that somebody informed him that his brother has been murdered by one Yeshwanth and Vijikumar near Thattanahalli. Immediately he rushed to the spot and there he found that his brother was lying in a pool of blood. Immediately he went and informed to the police station. On the basis of the information a case has been registered in the above same crime number.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 that though CW.17 is an eyewitness, he is a stranger and he has not stated the name of accused No.2 when his statement was recorded and he has only stated that accused No.1 and one more person was present, that itself clearly goes to show that CW.17 is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. It is his further submission that petitioner-accused is languishing in a jail since more than two years. The evidence has not yet been commenced. It is his further submission that there is a delay in trial and if the trial is to be held, it may take another years complete the same. It is his further submission that he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused No.2 on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that CW.17 is an eyewitness to the alleged incident and in his statement, it clearly shows the overt acts of both the accused Nos.1 and 2. He has further submitted that the accused-petitioner has also assaulted with knife on the deceased and the deceased died due to thirteen injuries, which were suffered by him. It is his further submission that earlier the accused-petitioner has approached this Court in Crl.P.No.5485/2018 by order dated 24.09.2019, this Court dismissed the petition by considering the material on merits. Earlier to the said petition also the petitioner has filed Crl.P.No.556/2018 before this Court by order dated 27.02.2018, this Court has dismissed the petition and there are no changed circumstances. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. It is admitted that the accused-petitioner has approached this Court in Crl.P.No.556/2018 and Crl.P.No.5485/2018 and this Court, by order dated 22.07.2018 and 24.09.2018 have dismissed the petitions and there are no changed circumstances. Though the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that CW.17 is not an eyewitness and he has not mentioned the name of accused No.2 and no test identification parade has been held to identify the accused either in Police Station or in the jail, but the Court has already perused the records and come to a conclusion that the accused-petitioner is involved in a serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the petition came to be dismissed. Under the facts and circumstances, I feel that there are no changed circumstances, hence, the petition stands dismissed.
However, the liberty is granted to accused- petitioner to move for bail after examination of CW.17 eyewitness.
Sd/-
JUDGE GJM