IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7505 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Srinivas K.T.@ Seena, @ Laggere Seena, S/o Thimmegowda Aged about 37 years, Residing at Prakash Building, Kere Road, Raghavendra layout, Gangondanahalli, Madanayakanahalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk Pin Code-562162. ... Petitioner AND:
(By Sri. M.R. Nanjunda Gowda., Advocate for Sri. Ramesha H.N., Advocate) The State of Karnataka, By Vyalikaval Police Station, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore-560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. Honnappa, HCGP.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of CR.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in CR.No.52/2019 of Vyalikaval Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 read with 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition, coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard and perused the records.
2. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in the charge-sheet filed by the respondent Police in C.C.No.23407/2019, later culminated in to S.C.No.1598/2019 pending on the file of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70), Bengaluru.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2019 at about 7.30 p.m. complainant (injured eyewitness) was standing in front of the shop along with one Ganesh (deceased) who came near Omkar Condiments at 8th Cross, Malleshwaram. It is alleged that at that time three unknown persons came on a two wheeler and one person who was sitting on the back seat assaulted with a chopper on the neck of the deceased and also assaulted the complainant who rushed to rescue the deceased. They also abused the complainant and deceased in filthy language and sped away from the spot on the said motorcycle. The injured eyewitness was examined by investigating agency and the identification parade has also been conducted, wherein the complainant has identified the accused No.1 as the assailant who was sitting on the back seat of the said motorcycle and the petitioner was riding the said motorcycle and in between one Murthy was also sitting, who is accused No.3. The entire charge-sheet papers disclose that there is no specific motive so far as deceased is concerned and on the other hand, accused No.1 was sitting on the back seat, the petitioner was riding the motorcycle. The statement made before the court by the eyewitness and also the complaint shows that the petitioner was wearing a helmet while riding the motorcycle. Though there was identification during the course of test identification parade, allegation is made against accused No.1 who was sitting on the extreme back seat of the said motorcycle. Whether petitioner knew that accused No.1 would assault anybody by sitting on the back side of the said motor cycle and whether there was any common intention on the part of this petitioner has to be decided during the course of full-dressed trial. The petitioner is not actual assailant. Therefore, in the abovesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the petitioner who has not actually assaulted the deceased or the complainant is entitled to be enlarged on bail as the whole allegation is made against accused No.1 and as the charge sheet has already been filed and the test identification parade has already been conducted. Though learned HCGP submitted that there are other 9 cases pending against this petitioner, that itself is not sufficient to decline bail because learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been released on bail in those cases. Considering the nature of allegations and the materials available on record and so far as this case is concerned, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following:
ORDER (i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-