Karnataka High Court
Sunil S/O Channayya Sandam vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 July, 2020
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100583/2020
BETWEEN:
SUNIL S/O CHANNAYYA SANDAM
AGE:26 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT IN IBMR
INSTITUTE HUBBALLI, R/O MOULALI JHOPADI,
MANTUR ROAD, HUBBALLI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(KESHWAPUR POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI)
R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD
...RESPONDENT
(BY MISS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C PRAYED TO KINDLY ALLOW THE PETITION
AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL, WHO IS ARRAYED
AS ACCUSED NO.1 IN CONNECTION WITH KESHWAPUR P.S.
CRIME NO.4/2019, DATED 14.01.2019, FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 326,307, 302 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING IN SC NO.144/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE DUE TO COVID-19, THIS DAY, COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No.4/2019 of Keshwapur Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. R.H. Angadi and Miss Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP through video conferencing.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner who is an innocent person has been implicated in the above stated Crime No.4/2019 by referring to copy of complaint. It is his submission that a complaint came to be filed against three unknown persons. The complaint would disclose that the complainant along with his friend i.e. deceased on 13.1.2019 left the complainant's house at about 6.30 p.m. along with Uttam. Initially, they went to Priya 3 Wine shop and after having drinks at about 7.30 p.m., went to railway ground where dance program was going on. After parking their motor bike, they went to see dance program. After completion of dance program at about 10.45 p.m., the complainant asked his friend Uttam to get parked motor bike; at that time, Uttam came holding his hand on his neck stating that three persons slit his throat and ran away; due to which, blood was oozing. Immediately, the complainant took Uttam on his bike and when bike reached near Railway Bridge, the deceased become unconscious and fell down from the bike. Thereafter, the complainant put the deceased in Auto and took him to the hospital. Subsequently, on 14.1.2019, he succumbed to the injuries.
4. Learned counsel further submits that no name is shown in the complaint. It is his submission that the complaint is against unknown persons and there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. It is further 4 submitted that after seizing the vehicle of the petitioner, he was arrested on 16.1.2019. Identification parade conducted on 30.1.2019 was not in accordance with law. Accused were shown to the complainant on 15.1.2019 itself when the statement of the father of the deceased was recorded. Thus, as the identification parade was not conducted properly, entire prosecution fails. Further, learned counsel submits that looking into the allegations and the alleged offence, at the most offence may attract Section 304 Part-II of IPC and not offence under Section 302 of IPC. Only on the voluntary statement of the petitioner-accused No.1, entire prosecution case stands. On the other hand, the prosecution has not made out prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed alleged offence under Section 302 of IPC and other penal provisions. He further submits that the petitioner would abide by any conditions to be imposed 5 by this Court. Thus, he prays for allowing the petition and to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that the voluntary statement of the accused was recorded on 15.1.2019, wherein the petitioner had admitted that since the deceased abused him, the petitioner along with two others with an intention to murder the deceased using button knives silt the throat of the deceased. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No.1 is that he had assaulted with knife on the neck of the deceased. When such heinous offence being committed by the petitioner and charge sheet has already been filed, the petitioner may face trial and it is not a fit case for bail. Further, learned HCGP submitted that whether proper identification parade was conducted or whether there is any lacuna, is a matter for trial. At this stage, it cannot be gone into while considering the application for bail. Thus, she prays for rejecting the bail petition.
6
6. Submission of the learned counsel for the parties is considered carefully and I have gone through the records made available along with the petition.
7. As per the complaint and statement of the complainant that no person is named. But on arrest of the petitioner-accused No.1, he had admitted the incident which had taken place on 13.1.2019 at about 10.45 p.m. along with two others. In his voluntary statement, he states that with his button knife, he silt left throat of the deceased and his friend Michael and Sunny with their knives attacked left shoulder of the deceased.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of decisions has laid down the principles which are to be borne in mind while considering the bail application. It is for the Court to consider whether there is any prima facie case, reasonable ground to believe the alleged offence; nature and gravity of the allegations and the punishment in the event of conviction of the accused 7 apart from accused absconding or fleeing away or his position and standing in the society.
9. Voluntary statement of the petitioner- accused No.1 itself makes it clear at this stage that the petitioner with his button knife silt the throat of the deceased along with his two other friends. Hence, there is prima facie reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner-accused No.1 has committed the alleged offence. But ultimately, it is for the prosecution to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. The allegation, if proved, would result in imposition of punishment of death or life imprisonment and the petitioner would be liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Whether there was any intention of causing death of the deceased or whether contention of the petitioner that there is lacuna in identification parade is a matter for trial. However, it is not in dispute that the accused was possessing button knife when the alleged incident had taken place. 8
10. Moreover, it is pointed out by the learned HCGP that this Court by order dated 15.7.2010 in Crl.P. No.101120/2019 rejected the bail application of the accused No.2 observing that it is premature to examine whether case falls under Section 304 Part-II of IPC or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground to release him on bail. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE JTR