Karnataka High Court
Deepu S vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 October, 2016
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6049/2016
BETWEEN:
DEEPU.S.
S/O.LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGE 22 YEARS,
R/O.83, ANJENEYA SLUM,
WILSON GARDEN 1ST CROSS,
BANGALORE - 560 027. .. PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SANATH KUMAR.K.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WILSON GARDEN POLICE
BANGALORE - 560 027. .. RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.42/2016
(S.C.NO.666/2016) OF WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC AND
SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.42/2016.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner-accused and the deceased were the friends and they were used to join together to drink alcohol. On 22.2.2016 at about 9.45 p.m., the accused came near the house of the deceased and had taken the deceased in his Active Honda and thereafter, they went to Ganga Bar at Wilson Garden 4th Cross. Thereafter, they had been to Hindu Crematorium situated at Hosur Road. There, they consumed alcohol. At that time, the deceased told the 3 accused to send his wife with him, for that, the accused become enraged and stabbed the deceased at his neck and right leg with the knife kept in his pocket and the deceased fell down. Thereafter, the accused had taken the stone lying there and dropped on the head of the deceased and thereby, committed the alleged offence. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. The case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Even with regard to the circumstance of last seen theory projected by the prosecution, there is no consistency in the materials collected by the investigating officer during investigation. 4 He further made submission that the entire materials collected during investigation will not make out prima facie case as against the petitioner. Now investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet has been filed. By imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, submitted that though the case rests on the circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances have been prima facie established by the prosecution through the materials collected during investigation. He made submission that so far as the last seen theory is concerned, the complainant herself has stated that the accused came to the house and took the deceased on his motor bike. The other witnesses more particularly C.W.2 who is an employee at the Bar has stated that the accused and the deceased had come to Bar and had drinks and he has also stated about the deceased and the accused 5 moving together. Hence, he submitted that the prosecution has placed materials as against the petitioner about the complicity of the petitioner in committing the offence. Hence, he submitted to reject the petition.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record. I have also perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on the bail application.
7. Looking to the entire materials collected, so far as the last seen theory of the prosecution case is concerned, the complainant herself stated that the present petitioner came to the house and took the deceased on his motor bike. Subsequently, the employee of the Bar Lingaraju also gave statement before the police that both the accused and the deceased came to the Bar and consumed liquor and they also purchased the liquor and carried the same. The statement of C.W.2 also supports the case of prosecution 6 regarding the last seen theory of both the petitioner and the deceased went to crematorium, had drinks at the said place and there afterwards, he had seen only the accused coming out of the crematorium. The other materials collected by the investigation goes to show that T-shirt of the petitioner, one knife and one stone along with the belongings of the deceased were sent to FSL for examination and report. Looking to the analysis of the FSL, it clearly goes to show that the belongings of the accused i.e., his T-shirt, knife, stone all having blood i.e. the human blood. Even the blood grouping is given by the laboratory. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-