IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.866/2019 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.1548/2019 Crl.P. No.866/2019 Between:
Muniya, S/o Muttu, Aged about 20 years, R/at No.305, 2nd Cross, Bhangi Colony, Cottonpet, Bengaluru – 560 053. … Petitioner (By Sri T.V. Nanjareddy, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka, Cottonpet Police Station, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001 … Respondent (By Sri S. Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.222/2018 (S.C. No.2035/2018) of Cottonpet Police Station, Bangalore City for the offence p/u/s 302 r/w 34 of IPC.
Crl. P. No.1548/2019 Between:
Vignesha @ Appu, S/o Venkatesha, Aged about 20 years, R/at No.182, 1st Cross, Bhangi Colony, Cottonpet, Bengaluru – 560 053. … Petitioner (By Sri T.V. Nanjareddy, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka, Cottonpet Police Station, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001 … Respondent (By Sri S. Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.222/2018 of Cottonpet Police Station, Bengluru City for the offences p/u/s 302, 143, 144, 147 and 148 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Crl.P.No.866/2019 and Crl.P.No.1548/2019 are taken up together and disposed of by this common order, as the proceedings relate to Crime No.222/2018.
2. The petitioners (accused No.5 in Crl.P.No.866/2019 and accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.1548/2019) are seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with their detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.222/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.08.2018 at about 9.45 p.m., the deceased alongwith CW2 was near the Tea stall, at that time, the accused No.1 was having tea near the shop. As deceased is stated to have passed certain comments as regards accused No.1, at that instant, the accused No.1 noticed the other accused coming in an autorickshaw in the same direction alongwith the petitioners. The accused No.1 is said to have called upon the other accused to assault the deceased and it is stated that when the deceased tried to escape from the spot, the accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 chased the deceased and accused No.2 is stated to have stabbed the deceased. It is stated that deceased succumbed to injuries and died. The post mortem report reveals that death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab wounds sustained to the abdomen. The investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that admittedly the imputations that are made as per the version as regards the commission of offence in the charge sheet is only as regards accused No.2 and post mortem report also states that death is due to injury, shock, hemorrhage and stab injuries to the abdomen. Hence, the learned counsel contends that the overt act, which resulted in death is only attributed to accused No.2 and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent – State, however, states that CW2 is the only eye-witness and the case predominantly rests on CW2 and there is an apprehension of threat to CW2, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail.
6. Taking note of the fact that investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed and also for the present, in the context of proceedings relating to grant of bail, the overt acts resulting in fatal injury leading to death as per the version of prosecution is as against accused No.2 and taking note of the imputations made as regards the petitioners that they had assaulted the deceased by hand, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, it is to be noted that the commission of offences as made out in the charge sheet is a matter to be proved during trial. It is also to be further noted that CW2 has pointed out to the involvement of one Rajesh. Hence, the commission of offence by the petitioner is a matter for trial.
7. In the result, the bail petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are allowed and the petitioners (accused No.5 in Crl.P.No.866/2019 and accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.1548/2019) are enlarged on bail in Crime No.222/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioners shall execute personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) each with surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioners shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioners to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) The petitioners shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature.
(vi) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioners, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR