IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2516/2019 BETWEEN:
Dhananjaiah, S/o Late Ramaiah, Aged 26 years, R/at Master Rangaiah House, Shettihalli, Bhagalagunte, Bengaluru – 560 090. ... Petitioner (By Sri Shiva Prasad Y.S., Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Dobespete P.S., Represented by SPP, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP for Respondent; Sri Gopalakrishna Murthy C., Advocate for Complainant) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.108/2018 of Dobbespet Police Station, Bengaluru District for the offences p/u/s 143, 364, 302 r/w 149 of IPC and 3(2) (5) of SC/ST Act, 1989.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for the State and Sri. Gopalakrishna Murthy . C, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the records.
2. The charge sheet has been laid against petitioner and other accused persons for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 364, 302 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.05.2018, the complainant by name Lakshminarayana who is none other than the brother of deceased Naveen Kumar has lodged a complaint stating that a lady by name Anuja was residing near the house of the complainant and in fact, the said Anuja and Naveen Kumar, brother of the complainant have developed illicit intimacy with each other which was resisted by the accused persons, particularly accused no.1 who is none other than the brother of said Anuja. In this background, it is stated that on various occasions, the deceased Naveen Kumar was warned and he was sent back to his house twice by abusing him and assaulting him. In the wake of above said circumstances, since 15 days prior to the incident, the said Naveen Kumar was not at all visiting Anuja’s house. On 13.05.2018, the said Naveen Kumar in fact had been to Anuja’s house and this information came to the knowledge of the accused persons. Immediately they went to the house of Anuja and found Naveen Kumar and Anuja inside the house. They broke open the door of the house and took Anuja as well as Naveen Kumar in their vehicle and took them to Giriyanapalya, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk at about 9.45 p.m., in the night. They kept Anuja in one room and Naveen Kumar was taken by the accused persons and thereafter it is alleged that between 9.45 p.m. to 5.00 a.m., Naveen Kumar was severely assaulted by the accused persons with a cricket bat and sticks and caused severe injuries to his head, legs, waist and other parts of the body and due to the said injuries, the said person was admitted to the hospital on the next day on 14.05.2018. The said person survived till 7.30 a.m., on 16.05.2018.
4. It is the specific allegation against this petitioner that he assaulted the deceased on his head with a cricket bat.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that considering the nature of allegations and the previous conduct of the accused persons as well as the deceased and Anuja, there was no motive for the accused to assault the deceased as they have only warned the deceased once. Further added to that, the said Anuja who was kept in one room had no occasion to see the incident. Therefore, her statement that she is an eyewitness to the incident cannot be taken into account. Further, it is contended that the accused persons have been in judicial custody for more than 1 ½ years. Hence, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the State and also the learned counsel for the complainant submit that there are serious allegations made against the accused attracting an offence under Section 302 of IPC. When there is an eyewitness, this court cannot distinguish the statement of Anuja at this particular stage when she has categorically stated that she has actually seen the incident. Further added to that, there is a strong motive to do away with the life of the deceased. The accused persons also assaulted the deceased and warned him not to continue his relationship with Anuja. Therefore, looking into the nature of allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Having heard the arguments and on careful perusal of the charge sheet papers, the statement of Anuja made available by the prosecution goes to show that she has categorically stated that she was present on 13.05.2018 when the accused persons have dragged her and Naveen Kumar and took them to Giriyanapalya, Sompura Hobli, Nelamanagala Taluk and in fact, she was kept in a room. On 14.05.2018, around 9.00 a.m., she called to a person by name Srinivas and in turn the said Srinivas had informed the same to the complainant and asked him to come to Victoria Hospital. Thereafter, the complainant had been to the hospital and saw the injured. Of course, there is delay in lodging the complaint on 16.05.2018. It is seen that the injured was unconscious and lying in the hospital and therefore, the complainant who had been the hospital was taking care of the injured in the hospital. Perhaps, there is reason for lodging the compliant belatedly. Therefore, in my considered opinion the case rests on the eyewitness version more particularly when she is the sister of the accused, her statement has to be tested through full dressed trial.
8. In the above circumstances, I do not find any reasons to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-