IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3078 OF 2019 Between:
1. Srinivasa @ Seena, S/o.Kallana Gowda, Aged about 24 years, R/at Indrani’s House, Gangondanahalli Main Road, Indiranagara, Doddabidarakallu, Nagasandra Post, Bengaluru-560073.
2. Prabhu @ Bhajanthri, S/o.Late.Sanna, Aged about 32 years, Residing in a hut, Near Ganga International School, Indiranagara, Nelagadaranahalli Main Road, Nagasandra Post, Bengaluru-560073. ... Petitioners (By Sri.Jagadeesha.H, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru.
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bengaluru-560001. ... Respondent (By Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Crl.P is filed u/s.439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.605/2018 (C.C.No.6759/2019) of Peenya P.S. Bangalore for the offence p/u/s 302, 120B r/w 34 of IPC.
This Crl.P coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail in Crime No.605/2018 of Peenya Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The genesis of the complaint is that the complainant’s elder brother Hanumanthegowda @ Kumar and Vijay Kumar were residing together since 1 ½ month at Puttaswamy building, Muneshwara Layout, Bengaluru. On 03.12.2018 at about 6.00 a.m., Hanumanthegowda took bath in the house of the complainant and went for work. He did not return back till evening. Hence, complainant’s younger brother Devendragowda called Hanumanthegowda to come for dinner. Hanumanthegowda informed that he would sleep at Viajaykumar’s house. As Hanumanthegowda did not come even at 7.00 a.m. to complainant’s house, complainant in order to send his elder brother Hanumanthegowda to work came down to Puttaswamy building, the complainant found the door was closed and he pushed the door and found Hanumanthegowda lying on the floor. There were stones near by the head of Hanumanthegowda. On the basis of the complaint, a cased has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offences and there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. Even CW.25, who is said to be an eye-witness, is not an eye-witness to the alleged incident. He further submitted that the alleged incident has taken place on 03.12.2018 but the statement of CW.25 has been recorded on 09.12.2018. There is a delay of five days in recording the statement of the eye-witness. Further it is submitted that if he has really seen the alleged incident the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are going to the said house, then under such circumstances, he could have definitely discussed the said facts either with the complainant or with the police. It is further submitted that only on the basis of the voluntary statement of petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, further investigation has been done and the chargesheet has been filed. It is further submitted that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are languishing in jail. Already the chargesheet has been filed and they are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that earlier the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have approached this Court in Crl. P. No.2774/2019 and they have got withdrawn and now there are no changed circumstances to file a fresh petition. It is further submitted that CW.25 is an eye-witness to the alleged incident and he has followed the accused persons and he has deposed before the Court as well as under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that the accused persons went to the house and there, by putting the stone on the head of the deceased have caused the death. Further it is submitted that CWs.16 to 20, they are persons, who were working in the Bar and they have seen the accused and the deceased sitting together and subsequently, accused persons going to the house after quarrel. It is further submitted that there is a strong motive insofar as the elimination of the deceased. It is further submitted that the accused petitioners are involved in a serious offence, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If they are released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and they may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and also the chargesheet material, which has been made available during the course of arguments.
8. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint, the name of accused Nos.1 and 2 is not mentioned but subsequently, during the course of investigation the statement of CW.25 has been recorded therein, he has clearly stated that when he was sitting in the Bar, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 were discussing the matter and thereafter, they went to the house and he has also followed them. They pushed the door and went inside and he heard the assaulting sound. Thereafter, he came to know that the deceased – Hanumanthegowda has been got murdered. Even CWs.16 to 20 have also stated about the accused petitioners were quarrelling in the Bar. Though there are no eye-witnesses but there are strong circumstances to come to the conclusion that the accused petitioners are involved in a serious offence, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
9. In that light, I feel that this is not a fit case to allow the petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS CT:RG