Karnataka High Court
Sri Koushik Raj @ Appaji @ Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 6 October, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4391 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
Sri. Koushik Raj @ Appaji @ Babu
Son of Jagadish
Aged about 19 years
Residing at:
No.164/1, 4th Cross, 2nd Main
Prakashnagar
Bengaluru - 560 021 ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Ravindra Gowda for
Sri. Melani Sebastian, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
By Srirampura Police Station
Represented by S.P.P.
High Court of Karnataka
High Court Building
Bengaluru - 560 001. . ... Respondent
(By Sri. Mahesh Shetty, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.177/2019 of Srirampura Police Station, Bengaluru for
the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 143,
144, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.
-2-
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders through
video conference this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., to release him on bail in Crime No.177/2019 of Srirampura Police Station (pending in C.C.No.5898/2020 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 144, 147, and 149 of IPC and also under Section 120B of IPC.
2. I have heard Sri. Ravindra Gowda for Sri Melani Sebastian, learned counsel for petitioner/ accused No.4 virtually and Sri. Mahesh Sheety, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the son of the complainant was unemployed for a long time and subsequently he was employed in Zomato and was -3- working as a delivery boy about 2-3 days. Her son was staying at his friend's residence. On 26.12.2019, he returned to home at about 5:00 p.m. and took a bath and had dinner. At about 7:00 p.m., he received a call from one of his friend and he by stating to the complainant that he will come back and went out. At about 9:30 p.m., she received a call from Dileep, who is a friend of her son stating that himself and Manjunath were called at about 9:15 p.m. by Thilak to discuss about money relates near L.N.Pura Bus Stand and when they went towards the bus stop, all of a sudden Thilak and 4 to 5 of his associates attacked deceased Manjunath with machu and knives and assaulted all over his body and as a result of the same, he has lost his consciousness and fell down and the Police got him admitted to K.C.General Hospital. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered. -4-
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.4 that the material produced did not state the involvement of the petitioner/accused No.4. It is his further submission that except CW2, no other eye witnesses have stated the name of the petitioner/accused No.4. It is his further submission that even CW2 has not stated but he has stated that he facilitated the material available for the alleged incident. It is his further submission that the alleged incident has taken place in a Galata and it is highly impossible to identify who actually assaulted the deceased. It is his further submission that his son is younger boy and no bad antecedents are there. He further submitted that petitioner/accused No.4 is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.4 on bail.
-5-
5. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that CW2 and CW5 are eye witnesses to the alleged incident and they identified the petitioner/accused No.4 for having assaulted the deceased on his private part two times and thereby causing death of the deceased. It is his further submission the medical records are corroborates with the statement of these eye witnesses. The petitioner/accused No.4 has also involved in the alleged crime, which is an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There are serious overt acts as against the petitioner/accused No.4. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 has made available the charge -6- sheet material. On perusal of the charge sheet material, it indicates that when the accused persons have called the deceased in respect of financial transactions and at that time, accused No.1 assaulted with long on the head of the deceased and accused No.2 also assaulted with the long on the right side of the body and when the deceased fell down and at that time, it is accused No.4, it is he who assaulted with the knives on the private part two time, accused No.5 has also assaulted with the knife on his thigh and the juvenile offender by saying that he should not be left he has assaulted with button knife on chest about 2-3 times and as a result of same, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and they left that place. There are serious overt acts alleged as against the petitioner/accused No.4 for having assaulted the deceased and even the Post Mortem Report indicates that death of the deceased is due to multiple injuries.
-7-
8. Taking into the consideration the said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner/accused No.4 has not made out any good reasons to release him on bail. In that light, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KA