Karnataka High Court
Jambahudur Karki @ Jm Bdr Karki vs State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2020
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1871/2020
BETWEEN:
Jambahudur Karki @ Jam Bdr Karki
S/o Karnbahudur Karki
Aged about 43 years
Permanent Resident of
Uppar Lopani, Doula Thane
Tinsukia Jilla, Assam-786158
Presently residing at Pillagumpa
Prakash rented house, Hosakote
Bangalore-562114. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. Mohammed Pasha., Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
By Sulibele Police Station,
Bengaluru,
Rep. by SPP, High Court Campus
Bengaluru - 560 001. ...Respondent
(By Sri Mahendra Shetty, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
2
Cr.No.88/2019 registered by Sulibele Police Station,
Bengaluru District for the offence P/U/S 302 of IPC and
etc.,
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.88/2019 of Sulibele Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on bail.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that deceased Arjun Sharma is the brother of first informant. The first informant is working as a security guard in Vedental Group Apartment. The deceased was also working as a security guard in Bengaluru for the last 7 to 3 8 months. The wife of the deceased had deserted his company. The deceased was suspecting that the accused, who is also working as a security guard was responsible for his wife to desert him. Hence there used to be quarrel between the deceased and accused. In this background on 15.09.2019 at about 9.30 p.m. the accused came near the house of the deceased and picked up a quarrel with him and assaulted him with hands on his chest and forcibly pushed him with his hands. The deceased fell on his back and sustained severe injuries to his head and became unconscious. He was shifted to M.V.J. Hospital on the next day and from there for higher treatment, he was shifted to Silicon City Hospital. However, he succumbed to the injuries on 19.09.2019.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are no eye witness to the incident. Even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted, there is no case made out for the offence punishable 4 under Section 302 of IPC. He submits that on the very day on which the victim suffered injuries, he was not shifted to the hospital. However, unfortunately he died in the hospital after four days not responding to the treatment. He submits that the petitioner is working as a security guard for more than 10 years. He submits that now the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. Hence, seeks to enlarge the petitioner on bail by allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that with an intention to commit murder the petitioner has forcibly pushed the deceased on account of which he fell down and sustained grievous head injuries. He contends that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail then he may tamper with the witnesses and he may also flee from justice. Accordingly, he seeks to reject the petition.
5
6. According to the prosecution, the deceased was suspecting that the accused was responsible for his wife to desert him and there used to be quarrel with the accused frequently. It is the case of prosecution that on 15.09.2019 at about 9.30 p.m., accused came near the house of the deceased and picked up quarrel with the deceased saying that why he is suspecting him and insulting him by informing everyone that he is responsible for his wife deserting his company and saying so the accused assaulted the victim with hands on his chest and pushed him on account of which deceased fell down on his back and sustained head injury.
7. Perusal of the material on record does not indicate at this stage that there was any intention on the part of the accused to commit murder. The same has to be decided during trail. The accused-petitioner was arrested on 23.09.2019 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been 6 filed. The petitioner is not required for any further investigation. The apprehension of the prosecution can be safeguarded by imposing suitable conditions. Hence the following;
ORDER Criminal Petition is allowed.
1. Petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two local sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court.
2. Petitioner shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
3. Petitioner shall be regular in attending the court proceedings.
7
4. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the learned Sessions Judge.
5. Petitioner shall furnish his correct address to the concerned police and shall intimate change of address, if any.
6. If any of the conditions are violated the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE rv/ssb