IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6966/2017 BETWEEN:
1. Raja, S/o Late Nagaraju, Aged about 26 years, R/at Mallikarjun Rented House, Near Venkateshwara Theatre, Anekal Town, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District – 562 106.
2. Raja S. @ Besthamanahalli Raja, S/o Srinivasa, Aged about 30 years, R/at Besthamanahalli, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Town, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District – 562 106.
3. Sanjay @ Colony Sanjay, S/o Venkatesh, Aged about 21 years, R/at 17th Ward, Near Yellamma Temple, Jai Bheemnagara, Anekal Town, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District – 562 106. …Petitioners (By Sri.M.V. Charati, Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Anekal Police, Bengaluru (R) District – 562 106. Represented by learned SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP) ….Respondent This criminal petition is filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.360/2016 of Anekal police station, Bengaluru District and Spl.C.No.92/2017 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offence P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 120 (B) R/W 149 of IPC and Section 3 CL (II) (V) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
This criminal petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R This is the petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7 filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 120B and 149 of IPC and also Section 3 CL (II) (V) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.360/2016.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7 and also the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7 submits that so far as the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7 are concerned, the general and bald allegations are made in the statement of alleged eye witnesses. He also made the submission that the motive is as against accused No.8 for the said incident and accused No.8 has already granted with bail by the order of the Court.
4. Learned counsel made the submission that except the bald allegations in the statement of the alleged eye witnesses, there is no recovery affected from petitioner/accused No.5 and so far as the accused Nos.6 and 7 are concerned, it is only accused No.2 who told the police that they are the weapons used by the accused persons. Hence, learned counsel made the submission as there is no prima facie case against the present petitioners, by imposing reasonable conditions they may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that there are eye witnesses i.e., CW-2 to 8. He also made the submission that CW-2, 3, 5 and 6 are the friends of the deceased Prabhu. He draw the attention of the Court to the statement of eye witnesses and made the submission that there is a clear statement by the witnesses that of the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7 alongwith other accused were armed with deadly weapons and they assaulted the deceased. It is also his submission that totally there are 21 external injuries on the body of the deceased as per the medical report. Hence, he submitted that petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the statement of witnesses referred by both the parties.
7. Looking to the statement of witnesses, prima facie there is a material as against present petitioners about their involvement in committing the alleged offences.
8. Regarding the bail order granted in respect of accused No.8 is concerned, looking to the prosecution case accused No.8 is the instigator to the other accused persons and he has not actually participated no overtact an that is the reason for granting bail to accused No.8. Therefore, ground of parity is not applicable to the present petitioners. In view of the material placed on record, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.
Hence, the petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE MH/-