Karnataka High Court
Mr.Krishna @ Kusumba vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3701 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. MR.KRISHNA @ KUSUMBA
S/O ARMUGAM
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.614, CHURCH ROAD
ULLAL UPANAGARA
BENGALURU-560 056.
2. CHANDRU @ A.SATHISHA
S/O ARMUGAM
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT NO.614, CHURCH ROAD
ULLAL UPANAGARA
BENGALURU-560 056.
3. N.PRAVEEN KUMAR
S/O LATE MURTHI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT NEAR APAJI CANTEEN
HANUMANTHANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 019.
4. MANOJ KUMAR @ MANOJ
S/O MURGAN
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT NO.38, 6TH CROSS
2ND STAGE, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 092.
5. KUMERSH
S/O ARMUGAM
2
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT NO.614, CHURCH ROAD
ULLAL UPANAGARA
BENGALURU-560 056.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: VENKATARAMANAPPA D.S., ADVOCATE (PH))
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS INSPECTOR
JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP (PH))
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.36/2021 OF JNANABHARATHI P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 148, 147, 143, 149,
302 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 25(1B)(B), 25 OF ARMS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.36/2021 of Jnanabharati Police Station, pending in CC No.12073 of 2021 on the file of the IX A.C.M.M, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under 3 Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 25 and 25(1B)(B) of the Arms Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Archita.
2. Heard Sri.D S Venkataramanappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K S Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5. They have been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. They were apprehended on 17.02.2021 and since then they are in judicial custody. The first informant is not the eye witness to the incident. The deceased has urinated in front of the temple where accused No.1 was performing pooja. When this act of the deceased was questioned by accused No.1, the deceased came with CWs.16 to 21, armed with deadly weapons and started assaulting the petitioners. There was a free-fight between 4 two groups and in the meantime, the deceased died. A case and counter case is registered against each other. Petitioner No.4 filed the complaint against the assailants in Crime No.37 of 2021. All the accused in the said case are enlarged on bail. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Since the investigation is already completed, their detention in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioners are the permanent resident of the addresses mentioned in the cause title of the petition and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. The offences alleged is punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. CWs.1 to 5 are the eye witness to the incident. Accused No.1 is a rowdy sheeter and two cases of the year 2012 is 5 pending against him. Under such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. 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 petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
6. The material placed before the Court makes out a prima facie case against all the accused. The offences alleged is punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. However, it is admitted that case and counter case is filed in respect of the same incident.
It is also not in dispute that the accused in the counter case are already enlarged on bail. Admittedly, the 6 investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Even though it is contended that accused No.1 is a rowdy sheeter, except two cases of the year 2012, no other criminal antecedents are forthcoming. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to detain the petitioners in custody. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.36/2021 of Jnanabharati Police Station, pending in CC No.12073 of 2021 on the file of the IX A.C.M.M, Bengaluru, on obtaining the bond in a sum of 7 Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
a). The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.
b). The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The petitioners shall appear before the Court as and when required.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bgn/-