Karnataka High Court
B R Surya Teja @ Surya Teja @ Tikla Suri vs State Of Karnataka on 12 April, 2022
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1611/2022
BETWEEN:
B.R.SURYA TEJA @
SURYA TEJA @ TIKLA SURI
S/O BALARAJ S
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT NO.142, SRI LAKSHMI
VENKATESHWARA NILAYA
LAKSHMI THEATRE ROAD
NARAYANASWAMY LAYOUT
ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL-562106. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASANNA.D.P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KUMBALAGUDU POLICE STATION
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BANGALORE-560 001 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.RAHUL RAI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.176/2020
OF KUMBALAGODU POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA
(S.C.NO.154/2020 ON THE FILE OF IX ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU) FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 427, 341, 302, 307, 120B,
201, 212, 149 OF IPC AND ETC.,
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard Sri. Prasanna.D.P, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Rahul Rai, High Court Government Pleader for respondent.
2. The present petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with the following prayer;
"The petitioner above named prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to enlarge him on bail in S.C.No.154/2020 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 302, 307 R/w 149 of IPC, in the interest of justice and equity."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The complaint came to be lodged by Sumanthgowda, son of late Prakash, whereby Kumbalagodu police station registered a case in Crime No.176/2020 for the offences 3 punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 302, 307, 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), 1860.
4. The gist of the complaint averments is that on 31.07.2020 when the deceased Sunil Kumar had been to a hotel, accused persons including the present petitioner were waiting for him to come out of the hotel. As soon as he came out of the hotel, all the accused persons encircled the car wherein, the deceased was sitting and after breaking upon car glass with the sharp edged weapons they attacked Sunil kumar on account of the previous enmity. The overtact as against the present petitioner is that he took a knife and stabbed the deceased on his chest. Thereafter, accused persons flee away from the spot
5. After registering the case, investigating agency investigated the matter in detail and filed charge sheet against all the accused persons including the present petitioner.
4
6. Petitioner was arrested and is in judicial custody. He applied for grant of bail in S.C. No.154/2020.
7. Learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru rural district, by order dated 04.12.2021 rejected the bail application filed by the present petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.
8. In the bail petition following grounds have been raised:
1. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the aforesaid address he is no way connected with the above case and he is falsely implicated and is innocent one.
2. The complainant has lodged the complaint against the one Anekal Manoja and others and this petitioner is came to be implicated on the basis of the confessional statement made by co-accused in not admissible in the eye of law.
3. As per the case of the complainant e is the eye-witness to the incident which took place on 31.07.2020 in front of the Kadamba Hotel at Mysore road but he has not lodged any 5 complaint or he has not taken any treatment immediately hence, the version of the alleged high witness cannot be believed one.
4. As per the version of the complainant on the way to Jigani he met one Shivananda and who took him to Vijayshree hospital at Jigani but said Shivananda also not lodged any complaint or informed the incident to any police hence, the story of the complainant is concocted one.
5. The alleged incident took place on 31.07.2020 in between 7:40 to 8:00 p.m. in the busy area at Mysore Highway but the respondent police have not received any information upto 6 a.m. on 01/08/2020 hence the story of the prosecution is covered under clouds.
6. Respondent police have allegedly recovered the weapons jointly from the accused it shows the manipulation and concoction by the respondent police.
7. Accused No.10 is enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court in criminal petition No.4007/2021 and the allegations made against accused No.1 and others hence, there is no specific over tact is alleged 6 against any person hence, this petitioner also entitled to enlarge him on bail on the ground of parity also.
8. The petitioner is in judicial custody 2 years and he is only the bread winner in his family and there are no other persons to look after his family.
9. The respondent police have implicated the name of this petitioner only on the basis of that he was one of the accused along with accused No.1 in another case except this there are no clinching material to fix petitioner in the above case as such the respondent police have failed to make out a prima-facie case and the respondent police have to establish the allegation in the due process of law and it will take considerable time to conclude the trial until then the custody of the petitioner amounts to sentence before trial.
10. There are no any other petition or petitions are pending before this Hon'ble Court or any other Court on the same cause of action and the petitioner has no other remedy other than approaching this Hon'ble Court in this Petition.7
9. Reiterating the above grounds, Sri.Prasanna.D.P., learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the accused is in judicial custody since 10.08.2020 and since the charge sheet is filed, continuation of the accused in judicial custody is no longer warranted and thus sought for grant of bail.
10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposes the bail petition on the ground that there is specific, individual overtact alleged against the present petitioner in the incident inasmuch as he has stabbed the deceased with a knife on his chest. Post mortem examination report clearly shows that the death is on account of multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased.
11. Perused the material on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties.
12. Admittedly, there is a previous ill-will between the deceased and the accused group as could be seen from 8 the material on record. All the accused persons had hatched a plan to take away the life of the deceased. As per the plan they waited for an opportunity. When the deceased had been to the hotel. As soon as, he came out of the hotel, was sitting in the car, all the accused persons encircled the car and broke open the glass of the driver side and windshield and started assaulting the deceased. Specific overtact alleged against the present petitioner is that he took out a knife and stabbed the deceased Sunil Kumar on his chest.
13. In the teeth of such a specific overtact alleged against the petitioner, the argument to be put forthwith on behalf of the petitioner that he is innocent cannot be countenanced in law at least at this stage.
14. Further, accused being in judicial custody from 10.08.2020 itself is not a good ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. So also grant of bail to other accused would not an act of parity in so far as the petitioner is 9 concerned in this case having regard as specific overtact is alleged against the present petitioner herein.
15. Suffice to say that the material available on record at this stage would definitely dis-entitle the petitioner from obtaining an order for grant of bail by the special powers vested in this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
16. Accordingly, following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) The bail petition is rejected.
(ii) However, taking note of the fact that the accused is in judicial custody on and from 10.08.2020, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. At this stage, it is informed that one of the accused is not attending the Court, therefore, the trial is stuck. Petitioner may make necessary request to Trial Court to proceed with the case.
Investigating agency to file split up charge sheet against accused who is absconding from the trial. 10
(iii) Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same on or before 31.12.2022.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE GVP