IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4067/2019 C/w.
Crl.Petition No.4807/2019 In Crl.Petition No.4067/2019: BETWEEN:
1. SRI YOGESH @ TAMATE @DABHANA (A5) S/O.Javarayeegowda AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 2. SRI HEMANTHA @HEMANTH KUMAR T.N (A6) S/O.NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS BOTH OF THEM ARE RESIDENTS OF THOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 428.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.M.R.NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADV. ) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADDUR POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560 001.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP, SRI A.V.RAMAKRISHNA, ADV. FOR APPLICANT IN I.A.1/19) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.444/2018 OF MADDUR P.S., MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.143,146, 148, 341, 307, 120B,201 R/W.149 OF IPC.
In Crl.Petition No.4807/2019:
BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVA @ SHIVU @ SHIVARAJU T.D (A4) S/O.DEVARAJU,AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O.THOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 428. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.R.NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADV. ) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADDUR POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560 001. ….RESPONDENT (BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.PC TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.444/2018 OF MADDUR P.S., MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.143, 146, 148, 341, 307, 302, 120B, 201, 149 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER I.A. No.I of 2019 filed in Crl.P.4067/19 by the learned counsel for the impleading applicant is allowed. He is permitted to assist the prosecution.
2. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.4067/2019 are arraigned as accused nos. 5 and 6 whereas, petitioner in Crl.Petition No.4807/2019 is arraigned as accused no.4 in the charge sheet laid by respondent-Police on the file of Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,) & JMFC Court, Maddur, Mandya District.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the entire charge sheet papers.
4. Before adverting to the grounds urged in the petitions, it is just and necessary to mention the brief factual matrix of the case. It is the case of the prosecution that some of the accused persons herein were also involved in the double murder case earlier and the deceased Prakash in this case. They are the route cause for the purpose of implicating the accused persons in the said case and in this background, the accused persons developed ill-will against the said deceased Prakash, have gathered themselves and have decided to do away with the life of deceased. In this backdrop, it is the further case of the prosecution that, on 24.12.2018, when the said deceased Prakash along with the complainant and other friends had been to Maddur IB Circle and at that particular place, the said Prakash came out from the Car and told one of the witnesses to repair the door/seat rexin which was torn on the backside of the car and he was standing outside the said Car. At 4.20 p.m. in the afternoon, it is alleged that at that point of time, accused persons including the petitioners have gathered into an unlawful assembly holding deadly weapons in the hands like knife and stabbed on the shoulder of deceased Prakash. One of them caught hold of said Prakash and other persons stabbed him on various parts of the body and committed murder of said Prakash. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the same day, the deceased succumbed to the injuries inflicted on his body.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Nanjunda Gowda submits, because of the previous political rivalry, there may be circumstances that accused persons have been implicated in this case falsely by the witnesses. Further he submits that the incident happened on 24.12.2018 but, the eye witnesses statements were recorded on 25.12.2018 for the reasons best known to the Police and not even an explanation is forthcoming in the statement of these witnesses.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that because of the statement of the Doctor who conducted post mortem that death of the deceased was due to cumulative effect of the injuries, but, nothing on facts disclose that the accused nos. 4, 5 and 6 have inflicted any injuries on the vital parts of the deceased and also on the shoulders and back of the deceased. Therefore, the Court may take into consideration the point with regard to the intention at the particular stage that the accused particularly petitioners had any intention to do away with the life of the deceased. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, accused nos. 4 and accused no.6 are arrayed as accused nos. 7 and 1 in the previous double murder case in which the said Prakash (deceased) was the lead accused, the Police have falsely implicated the present petitioners in the said crime. It is further contended that accused persons are farmers and they are well reputed citizens of the Society and they will abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and they would appear regularly before the Court and therefore, he contended that it is a fit case where the accused have to be released on bail.
7. Learned HCGP appearing on behalf of respondent-Police drawn my attention to the statement of witnesses as well as charges and he further submitted that 21 injuries have been inflicted on the deceased. The allegations regarding political vengeance, motive etc., can be found out in a full-dressed trial. The cumulative effect of the injuries at this stage cannot be gone into by this Court because Section 149 of Cr.PC was invoked by the Police. Of course, there is delay in recording the statement of witnesses but, he submits that, complainant himself has given his statement by way of complaint on the day of the incident itself. He has substantially stated about the overt acts done by the accused persons on the deceased person. Under the above said circumstances, the strong prima facie case has been made out against the accused persons which dis-entitles them from seeking bail on the ground of delay in recording the statement of witnesses.
8. Of course there is delay in recording the statement of witnesses. The delay itself, in my opinion, will not come in the way of Court to reject the bail unless other materials are brought on record. Further, though statement of eye witnesses was not recorded on the day of incident, but, complainant’s statement was available in which, he has categorically stated about the overtacts by the accused stating that these accused persons have inflicted injuries on the vital parts of the body and also on the shoulder and neck of the deceased. It is statement in the complainant’s statement that they were carrying deadly weapons in their hands. This itself shows that they had intention to inflict injuries on the deceased. Who inflicted injuries is not the question which has to be considered by this Court at this stage. Therefore, the intention of the accused shall be gathered by their conduct and the surrounding circumstances. At this stage, I do not want to give an opinion with regard to the intention of the accused. That has to be established in a full-dressed trial.
9. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances and also the medical evidence in which the Doctor has stated that because of cumulative effect of the injuries, the deceased succumbed, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said which injury actually caused the death of the deceased. That also has to be established during the course of the trial. Further, in my opinion, the strong evidence i.e. the complainant statement is available coupled with medical evidence and the conduct of the accused persons that they gathered themselves at the spot, I am of the view that it dis-entitles the accused from seeking bail. Hence, petitions are devoid of merits. Hence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
The petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/-