IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU Dated this the 11th day of December, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BUDIHAL R B Criminal Petition No 8534 of 2017 BETWEEN:
MR SUNIL @ SUJAY S/O MR RAME GOWDA R/AT ALDUR PURA VILLAGE ALDUR HOBLI CHICKMAGALUR TALUK PIN-577 111 (WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE SESSIONS COURT ORDER AS S/O MR KITTU AGED 21 YEARS R/AT KRISHNAPPA BADAVANE HANDI, ALDUR HOBLI CHICKMAGALUR TALUK … PETITIONER [By Sri M Shashidhara, Advocate] AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ALDUR POLICE CHICKMAGALUR TALUK THROUGH THE SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENT [By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP] CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CRPC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO 8/2017 OF ALDUR POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU AND NOW PENDING IN SC NO 55 OF 2017, ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 324 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 CrPC, seeking to release him on bail in Crime No 8 of 2017, now pending in Sessions Case No 55 of 2017, on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, registered by the respondent- police for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC.
2. The wife of the deceased is the complainant in this case, wherein, she has stated that some people who came from other places and staying in the Samudaya Bhavana of the village of the complainant were not maintaining the place clean. The husband of the complainant and other villagers went there and questioned the said people about the non-maintaining of the place well and got vacated them from the Samudaya Bhavana. The present petitioner, who was illegally vending liquor to the workers who stayed in the Samudhaya Bhavana, became anger due to loss of his business, and picked up quarrel with the husband of the complainant and assaulted him with deadly weapons. When the complainant and others went to his rescue, even the petitioner-accused tried to assault them also. The husband of the complainant was injured and he was shifted to hospital. When the doctor advised them to take him to another hospital, and when they were shifting the deceased to some other hospital, on the way, the husband of the complainant breathed his last. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent police registered the case for the aforesaid offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to assault the husband of the complainant. The alleged incident took place in a spur of moment. He also made submission that by looking into the materials produced by the prosecution, it is seen that the complainant is not an eye witness to the incident. He submitted that if the statements of alleged eye witnesses are perused, they clearly go to show that the complainant is not an eye witness, as she was not present there. He further submitted that now the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. The incident is because of sudden provocation and was not an intentional act. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP, appearing for the respondent-police, submits that looking into the contents of the complaint, it can be seen that the complainant herself is an eye witness to the incident. It is also his submission that apart from the complainant, there are other eye witnesses to the incident. He referred to the opinion of the doctor who conducted the post mortem of the deceased, and submitted that the opinion of the doctor is consistent with the other materials produced by the prosecution. Hence, the learned HGCP prays for rejection of the petition.
6. The complaint averments go to show that the complainant is an eye witness. I have also perused the statements of other witnesses also. Even in their statements, they have clearly stated that the complainant was present at the place of occurrence. Even if the complainant is not really an eye witness, the statements of other eye witnesses also clearly go to show that the present petitioner assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons. The medical opinion is also consistent with the case of the prosecution. Hence, by looking into the materials produced by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant bail.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE *pjk