Karnataka High Court
Sri.Kiran @ Kumuda vs State Of Karnataka By on 8 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6212/2020
BETWEEN:
Sri.Kiran @ Kumuda,
S/o Prakash,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at Government Hospital,
Janatha Colony Site,
Huliyurudurga, Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District - 560 012.
... Petitioner
(By Sri.Nagaraja N., Advocate)
AND
State of Karnataka,
By Tavarekere Police Station,
Bengaluru.
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
... Respondent
(By Sri.R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.117/2015 of Tavarekere P.S., Ramanagara For the
-2-
offences P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 120B, 506, 149 of
IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.117/2015 of Tavarekere Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 302, 307 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. I have heard Sri. Nagaraja N., learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 and Sri. R.D.Renukaradhya, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution as per the complaint averments is that complainant is stated to be working in a private company in Penya II Stage. On 03.03.2015, complainant had holiday for his -3- work and he was at house. On the same day at about 10.00 a.m, complainant met Nataraja @ Nataraja Kumar near his house where Nataraj was constructing a house and they were discussing about Nataraja's daughter's marriage which was recently held. At about 10.15 a.m, one auto rickshaw came from layout side. The complainant and Nataraja gave side to auto rickshaw, but the auto rickshaw did not go forward and stopped there and three persons got down from the auto rickshaw holding longs and suddenly assaulted Nataraja on his body. At that time, the complainant also sustained injuries and one of the assailants had assaulted the complainant with a long on his right hand, head and caused bleeding injuries. When the complainant escaped from them with fear, the assailants assaulted Nataraja with longs on the head and other parts of the body. Nataraja died on the spot. As the auto driver was sitting in the driver seat, the three assailants escaped from the spot in the said auto. -4- The complainant went to Saibaba Hospital, Laggere with the help of his brother-in-law and took treatment. On 03.03.2015, he lodged complaint against unknown persons, on the basis of which a case came to be registered and during the course of investigation, the present petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.2.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 that earlier the petitioner/accused has approached this Court in Crl.P.No.4941/2017, this Court by order dated 13.10.2017 has dismissed the petition but however, an observation has been made by giving a liberty that the trial Court to take up the matter on day to day basis preferably and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order and liberty has been granted to the petitioner to move the trial Court for grant of bail. In light of the said order, the trial -5- has not been concluded within the prescribed time as ordered by this Court, he moved the bail petition before the trail Court and the said petition has been dismissed erroneously. It is his further submission that the prosecution has got examined as many as 15 witnesses. PW.1-Complainant is the main eyewitness to the alleged incident but he has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile. PWs.3 and 4 who are said to be the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident have also not supported the case of the prosecution. It is his further submission that though PWs.2, 5 and 6 are the eyewitnesses, no incriminating materials has been stated by them as against the petitioner/accused No.2. It is his further submission that all other accused persons have been already enlarged on bail. Nearly 6 years, the petitioner/accused No.2 is in custody. It is his further submission that the remaining witnesses are the only mahazar witness and official witness. To conclude the evidence, it may take -6- some more time, the trial Court only because of some mahazer witnesses are to be examined has dismissed the petition. It is his further submission that he has also moved an application on medical grounds, but the same has also been rejected by the trail Court. He is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. It is the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader that though PWs.1, 3 and 4 have not supported the case of the prosecution, PWs.2, 5 and 6 are also eyewitnesss to the alleged incident, they have clearly stated the overtacts of the petitioner/accused No.2 in the alleged incident. By taking into consideration the said factual matrix of the case on hand, the trial Court has right rejected the bail application. The said submission appears to be having some force in the law. Even as could be seen from the -7- records produced, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner is suffering with paralysis attack and application filed before the Court below has been rejected on medical grounds and this Court while passing the order in Crl.P.No.4941/2017, liberty has been given to the petitioner to make an application for temporary bail, if necessary on medical grounds of his father. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court at least ought to have considered the second prayer and released the petitioner/accused No.2 temporarily on bail to go and see his father who is suffering with paralysis.
6. Talking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner/accused No.2 has not made out any grounds so as to release him on bail. The bail -8- application is liable to be partly allowed. Main petition for bail is dismissed.
7. However, the petitioner/accused No.2 has been temporarily released on bail for a period of two months from the date of his release so as to go and see his ailing father who is suffering with paralysis with the following conditions:
i. Immediately after two months the
petitioner/accused No.2 is directed to
surrender before the jail authorities. ii. The petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
iii. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
iv. He shall be regular in attending the trail as and when the date has been fixed.
-9-v. He shall mark his attendance before jurisdictional police once in 15 days in between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. vi. If he fails to surrender immediately after two months, the trial Court is at liberty to forfeit the bond.
With the above observations, this criminal petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE NR/-
CT:SN