Karnataka High Court
Uday Kumar @ Udi vs State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2986/2017
BETWEEN:
Uday Kumar @ Udi
S/o Gangadhar
Aged about 25 years
R/at Bayyanapalya
Balaji Layout
Rachappa Building
6th Cross, Ganapathipura
Bengaluru City-560 062. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri D S Venkataramanappa, Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka
By Kodihalli Police Station
Represented by the
Special Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru-560 001. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.
No.138/2015 of Kodihalli P.S., Ramanagara and
Spl.S.C.No.1/2016 pending on the file of the I Addl.
District and S.J., Ramanagara for the offences punishable
2
under Sections 143, 120(B), 302, 506(B) read with Section
149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following :
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 120(B), 302, 506(B) read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(10), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.138/2015.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The deceased is one Chandru. The brother of the deceased is the complainant in this case. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials so also the entire charge sheet material produced in the case. 3
4. Looking to the materials collected during investigation, as per the case of prosecution, C.Ws. 2 to 8 are the eye witnesses to the incident. Perusing their statement, they have spoken about the presence of the petitioner, with a boy, at the time of incident and also the petitioner holding deadly weapon and assaulting the deceased. Looking to the statement of C.Ws.2 to 8, they have clearly stated about the overt act done by the petitioner herein on the deceased. I have perused PM report wherein the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased is of the opinion that the death was because of the hemorrhage to multiple injuries sustained. The medical report is consistent with the statement of the eye witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has placed prima facie materials as against the petitioner herein. It is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
In view of the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner accused is in custody 4 since from the date of arrest, the concerned Court is hereby directed to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the same as early as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-