Karnataka High Court
Mahadeva Swamy @ Sarakki Mahesh vs State Of Karnataka on 1 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:40909
CRL.P No. 9173 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9173 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MAHADEVA SWAMY @
SARAKKI MAHESH
S/O KAALA MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO.23, NEAR INCHARA
HOTEL, 32ND MAIN ROAD,
6TH PHASE, J.P. NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 570 078
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed (BY SRI. DEVARAJA .M., ADVOCATE)
by SWAPNA V
Location: high AND:
court of
karnataka STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
DEVARAJA POLICE STATION,
MYSURU, REPRESENTED BY
HCGP, OFFICE AT HIGH COURT
BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL.S.P.P.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNNS) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN THE CASE IN S.C.NO.1/2024
ARISES OUT OF CRIME NO.78/2023 REGISTERED AT DEVARAJA
POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120-B, 201, 302, 364
R/W SEC.149 OF IPC PENDING CONSIDERATION ON THE FILE OF
THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MYSURU.
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:40909
CRL.P No. 9173 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.12 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.78/2023 of Devaraja Police Station, pending in S.C.No.01/2024 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 302, 364 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Chandru.
2. Heard Sri. Devaraja M, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Asma Kouser, learned Additional SPP for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.12 only at the time of filing the additional charge sheet during December - 2023. When the initial charge sheet was filed during November - 2023, there was no reference to the petitioner. Under the guise of filing additional charge sheet, the Investigating Officer referred to the name of the present petitioner as one of the assailant, without any basis. The witnesses who are cited in the additional charge sheet were -3- NC: 2024:KHC:40909 CRL.P No. 9173 of 2024 already the witnesses in the initial charge sheet. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis.
4. Learned counsel also submits that accused Nos. 7 to 11 against whom similar allegations are made have already been enlarged on bail. Under such circumstances, this petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned Additional SPP opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. While filing charge sheet, the Investigating Officer refers to the name of the petitioner and states that in the CCTV footage colleted by the Investigating Officer, the presence of the present petitioner was very much obvious. However, he was absconding and some more time was required to collect the information about him and the overt act committed by him. Accordingly, the permission was sought to further investigate into the matter under Section 173(8) of Cr.PC. She further submitted that during further investigation the overt act committed by the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:40909 CRL.P No. 9173 of 2024 petitioner was unearthed by the Investigating Officer and accordingly, it is stated that he had played active role both in conspiring with the other accused in commission of the offence, abducting the deceased and also assaulting with the deadly weapon. For all practical purposes, the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of accused Nos. 1 to 6.
6. Learned Additional SPP also submits that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents as Crime No. 107/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC Crime No. 210/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Crime No.104/2020 are registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC are registered against him in Konankunte police station. Under such circumstances, he is not entitled for grant of bail and accordingly, prays for dismissing the petition.
7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:40909 CRL.P No. 9173 of 2024 My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:
R E A S O N S.
8. The petitioner being accused No.12 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 26.11.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Initially, the FIR came to be filed by the informant against 10 unknown persons for having abducted 2 persons in a Scorpio Car and that he could not prevent them. Other persons who are along with the victim have referred to their names and therefore, he requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against accused No. 1 to 11 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364 302, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC. However, it is contended that accused Nos. 1 to 6 have caused the death of the deceased by assaulting with deadly weapons. Accused Nos. 7 to 11 are said to have committed the offence under Sections 120B, 364, 201 of IPC. While filing the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has referred to the CCTV footage recovered under PF No.74/2023 and specifically stated the name of the present -6- NC: 2024:KHC:40909 CRL.P No. 9173 of 2024 petitioner as seen in the footage, identified by accused No.1. It is stated by the Investigating Officer that the petitioner is absconding and some more time is required to get sufficient materials against him and to trace him for investigation. Thus, permission was sought for carrying on further investigation. It is thereafter, the further investigation was carried out and additional charge sheet came to be filed arraying the petitioner as accused No.12.
9. As per the additional charge sheet, this petitioner has actively involved in the commission of offence and he is also the assailant along with accused Nos. 1 to 6 and that he has committed the offence under Sections 120B, 364, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC. Admittedly, accused Nos. 1 to 6 are still in judicial custody. It was only accused Nos. 7 to 11 against whom the offence under Section 302 is not alleged are granted bail.
10. It is the specific contention of the learned Additional SPP that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents as 2 cases under Section 302 and 1 case under Section 307 are registered and pending against the petitioner. This fact is not -7- NC: 2024:KHC:40909 CRL.P No. 9173 of 2024 disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
11. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to get back the additional charge sheet produced before this Court. The office is permitted to return the same.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE SPV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 8