Karnataka High Court
Ramakrishna @ Ramu vs State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4397 OF 2017
BETWEEN
Ramakrishna @ Ramu
S/o Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.75, 5th Cross,
Someshwaranagara,
Yeshwanthapura,
Bengaluru-22.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. Chandrashekar, Advocate)
AND
State of Karnataka,
By Mahalaxmipuram Police,
(Represented by the State
Public Prosecutor,
High Court Complex,
Bengaluru-01.)
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.91/2017 of Mahalakshmipuram P.S., Bengaluru for the
offence P/U/S 143, 147, 307, 148, 302 R/w 149 of IPC.
2
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the court
made the following:-
ORDER
Petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.91/17 by Mahalaxmipuram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302 R/w Section 149 IPC, is seeking for being enlarged on bail.
2. The gist of the prosecution case is that the complainant along with his brother Swagath Gowda had produced a film (movie) by name Danger Zone and on said film being released, it suffered loss. Accused No.1 was one of the co-producer of the said film and it was alleged that he was demanding refund of money he had invested in producing said film and same had not been refunded by complainant and as such, accused No.1 was nursing grudge against the complainant. It has been further alleged in the complaint that on the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd March, 2017, at about 3 12.30 midnight, the complainant along with his friends Gopi - CW-2, Kamal - CW-3 and Manoj - deceased were consuming alcohol at Anand Bar in Mahalaxmipuram and after consuming liquor, they had proceeded towards APMC Land, BDA land and Someshwara Nagar. While sitting in front of Maruthi Traders at their usual place and chatting, at that point of time Gopi and Kamal arrived at the spot and one Manju, who was requested to bring alcohol and food had brought the same and complainant along with Manju, Gopi and Kamal were consuming liquor. At that point of time, accused No.1 arrived at the scene and started discussing about the film, which they had produced and started demanding complainant to refund the amount he had invested in film production and also to pay additional amount, for which, complainant did not agree which resulted in a dispute and abusive words were exchanged. It is further alleged by the complainant at that point of time, accused No.1 called over his mobile phone and asked 4 Mr. Prashanth-accused No.2 to immediately rush to the RMC Yard alleging Swaroop was assaulting him. It is further stated that within 10-15 minutes, accused No.2 to 6 armed with long and chopper, arrived at the spot and assaulted the complainant. At that time, accused No.2 had assaulted deceased Manoj by long who was trying to pacify the warring group, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries on head and fell down. It is further stated by the complainant that when said Prashanth tried to assault him, he was running and screaming, due to which all the accused persons fled from the scene of occurrence.
4. He has further stated that immediately thereafter, they took deceased Manoj on their motor bike to Sanjeevini Hospital and on being administered first aid and on the advise, he was shifted in an Ambulance to NIMHANS Hospital, where doctors declared him as having brought dead. He has further 5 alleged that accused No.1 was nursing grudge against him for non-payment of amount towards the film which they had produced together and he has further alleged that accused persons had intentionally come to the place where complainant and his friends were sitting and had assaulted them and had murdered Manoj. On the basis of said complaint, investigation has been taken up and on its conclusion, charge sheet came to be filed, which is now pending before the VII Addl. CMM, Bengaluru City in C.C.No.15225/2017 for committal to Jurisdictional Sessions Court.
5. I have heard the arguments of Sri. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and Sri. Chetan Desai, learned HCGP appearing for the State. Perused the records.
6. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner would contend that complaint itself is concocted and petitioner has been falsely implicated and records do 6 not disclose any overt-acts alleged against the petitioner-accused No.1 and even otherwise the incident have been taken place on the spur of the moment, Section 302 is not attracted and the alleged motive is fabricated. He further submits that petitioner is having deep roots in the society and if enlarged on bail, he would abide by such conditions as may be imposed by this Court. He would also draw the attention of the Court to the fact that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner by relying upon the statement made by CWs.2 and 3 at the time of drawing up of inquest mahazar on 03.03.2017 and hence, he seeks for petitioner being enlarged on bail.
7. Per contra, Sri. Chetan Desai, learned HCGP appearing for the prosecution would contend that motive is clearly established and perusal of contents of the complaint would disclose there was financial transaction between complainant and accused, on 7 account of both having produced a film and petitioner as an aggressor, had picked up quarrel with complainant and had instigated accused Nos.2 to 6 to murder complainant and on account of deceased Manoj having interfered in the scuffle that ensued, it resulted in said Manoj being murdered and all the accused persons have shared common object, common intention and had formed an unlawful assembly and had achieved common object by murdering Manoj and assaulting complainant. Hence, he seeks for rejection of the petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for State and on perusal of records, this Court is of the considered view that while dealing with an application for grant of bail, the circumstances which requires to be considered are as follows:
8
1. Nature of accusation and supporting evidence.
2. Reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of their being threat to the complainant.
3. Prima facie satisfaction to be arrived at in support of the charge amongst other attendant circumstances.
9. This Court also cannot loose sight of fidelity of the prosecution case and it is only the element of the prosecution case and it is only the element of genuineness that will have to be considered at the time of grant of bail and in the event of there being any genuineness of the prosecution even to the slightest effect in the normal course, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of bail as otherwise not. 9
10. Keeping these salutary principles in mind, when the case on hand are examined in the background of case papers, it would disclose that in the complaint which came to be lodged on 03.03.2017, it has been categorically stated by the complainant that accused No.1 arrived at the scene of occurrence namely at 12.00 p.m near RMC Yard in front of Maruthi Traders and demanded payment from the complainant in respect of film, which they had co-produced and on refusal by the complainant to pay the amount to accused No.1 the galata took place between them. He has also stated that both of them were pushing each other and at that point of time, accused No.1 had called from his mobile phone Mr. Prashanth - accused No.1 and had called him to the spot along with accused Nos.2 to 6 and accordingly they arrived at about 12.45 midnight armed with choppers and long and started assaulting. However, complainant does not state that accused No.1 had instigated accused Nos.2 to 6 to assault the complainant or his associates. 10
11. The statement of CWs.2, and 3, which is on record, came to be recorded at the first instance when the inquest mahazar was drawn. A perusal of same would indicate that accused persons came at the scene of offence on receiving phone call from accused No.1 and he further states that accused Nos.2 to 6, who arrived at about 12.45 a.m. pounced upon deceased Manoj and assaulted him. Complainant also states that when he tried to pacify or intervene in the fight Bharath-accused No.3 assaulted him with a long and as such he sustained grievous injury to his left hand. Same is the statement of CW.3. These two statements do not indicate or suggest that accused No.1 instigated them to attack deceased or complainant and his accomplices and this is prima facie material which cannot be brushed aside at this stage. However, no opinion is expressed with regard to these statements. It does not disclose that at the instigation of accused No.1 complainant was attacked by accused Nos.2 to 6. It is 11 only in the further statement recorded on 06.03.2017, they stated that accused No.1 had instigated them to execute (kill) the complainant and other persons, who were present at the scene of occurrence. This has to be thrashed out during course of trial.
12. When these statements are read along with the wound certificates produced along with the charge sheet relating to CW.2, it would disclose that injury sustained by the CW.2 is simple in nature. CW.3 was accompanied by a Police Constable, when he visited the hospital for treatment as is evident from contents of wound certificate dated 19.05.2017 would disclose that complainant was examined on 03.03.2017 at about 6.30 a.m. and his statement came to be recorded in the inquest mahazar on the same day between 11.00 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. As already noticed herein above in their statements, CWs.2 and 3 have not stated about accused No.1 having instigated accused Nos.2 to 6 and thus, the 12 motive as well as common intention which accused No.1 shared with accused Nos.2 to 6 will have to be established by the prosecution during the course of trial. Deceased Manoj as could be seen from the statement of the complainant CWs.2 and 3 and other witnesses would disclose that he was assaulted with a long by accused No.2 and the cause of his death as per the provisional opinion is "death is due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of chop and stab injuries sustained" . Thus no overt act is attributed to the petitioner-accused No.1. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion at this stage there is no reasonable ground that petitioner is responsible for the homicidal death of deceased Manoj. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is entitled for being enlarged on bail. The apprehension of the prosecution with regard to accused No.1 that he may indulge in tampering with prosecution witnesses or fleeing away 13 from justice can be allayed by imposing stringent conditions.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
ii) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.91/2017 registered by Mahalaxmipuram Police Station, now pending before VII ACMM, Bengaluru on executing a personal bond of ` 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent local sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court subject to following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall not tamper or terrorize the prosecution witnesses or induce prosecution witnesses in any manner.14
2. Petitioner shall not indulge in any act similar to the one alleged against him.
3. Petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all dates of hearing, without fail.
4. Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional Police Station namely Mahalaxmipuram Police Station, twice in a month i.e., 1st and 15th of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. till conclusion of trial.
5. In the event of any of the conditions being violated, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMC