IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4447/2019 BETWEEN:
Vijayakumar alias Viji, S/o Muniyappa, Aged 35 years, Residing at No.75/3, Indirapriya Darshini Colony, Arekere, B.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 083.
(By Sri.Y.S.Shivaprasad, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Konanakunte P.S., Represented by S.P.P., High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001.
(By Sri.Honnappa, HCGP) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.398/2018 (C.C.No.4446/2019) of Konanakunte Police Station, Bengaluru City For the offences P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 25(1)(B)(b) of Arms Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.8 in C.C.No.4446/2019, arising out of Crime No.398/2018 of Konanakunte Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 25(1) (B) (b) of ARMS Act.
3. Brief facts of the case as could be seen from the charge-sheet are that, on 21.11.2018 at about 8.30, PM., the deceased by name Muruga along with one Palani, Nimance Raja and Manja were consuming alcohol near the house of the complainant by name Ayyanar, at that time, the Nimance Raja had telephoned to some body and informed that they are consuming drinks near the house of the complainant. In the night hours at about 10.30 pm, when the complainant and his brother deceased-Muruga and Palani @ Muruga were about to start the vehicle to go back to their homes, at that time it is alleged that the accused persons gathered there in two wheelers vehicles and Auto rickshaws holding deadly weapon in their hands and chased the deceased in order to eliminate him. He ran towards Chitra Bar and fell down there, at that time it is specifically stated that accused Nos.1 to 8 have mercilessly assaulted him with longs, choppers and draggers. Other accused persons i.e. 9 to 19 have actually assisted the accused Nos.1 to 8 by preventing the deceased from going anywhere and also caught hold him so as to enable the accused Nos.1 to 8 to assault the deceased. It is specifically stated that accused Nos.1 to 8 were assaulted the deceased with dragger and choppers and knives on the hand and other parts of the body and due to which, he succumbed to the injuries.
4. During the course of investigation, the police have also recorded the statement of eye witnesses. One of the eye witnesses by name Ashok has categorically stated the overt act of the accused persons. Other eye witnesses have also stated the same. In fact they have not implicated all the accused as assailants. They were bifurcated the overt-act of all the accused persons and stated that accused Nos.9 to 19 are the persons who actually prevented the deceased from going anywhere so as to enable the accused Nos.1 to 8 to assault the deceased and accused Nos.1 to 8 who are the assailants, holding deadly weapons in their hands. They also identified within short span of time in the police station. Deadly weapons also recovered from this petitioner and other accused persons.
5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner draw my attention at the initial stage, name of the petitioner does not found in the FIR and subsequently, after voluntary statement of the accused No.1 being recorded, name of this petitioner has been implicated and eye witnesses have not stated the name of this petitioner at the earliest point of time. Statement of eye witnesses shows that these accused were known to the witnesses but they might not know the name of the petitioner herein. Therefore, in their subsequent statement, when the accused persons were shown to them in the police station, they might have remembered the name of this petitioner and disclosed his overt-act. When the overt-acts of the accused persons have been specifically bifurcated by the eye witnesses, it cannot be said that they might have falsely implicated this petitioner, even if it is so, it has to be established during the course of full dressed trial. When, eye witnesses’ version are available and as they have disclosed the specific overt-acts of the petitioner and other accused persons, in my opinion, the petitioner-
accused No.8 is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage, though the charge-sheet has been filed.
Hence, the petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE SB