Karnataka High Court
Santhosh @ Santhu vs State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7499/2022
BETWEEN
1 . SANTHOSH @ SANTHU
S/O LATE DODDA NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT NO.205, BALAJI LAYOUT
KARIHOBANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560010
2 . KIRAN @ BAT
S/O LATE MALLESHARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.56, PUTTAMMA BUILDING
8TH CROSS, SHIVAPURA
NELAGADARANAHLLI
BENGALURU-560010
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K RAM SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PEENYA POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE-560058
REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
2
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.341/2021
REGISTERED BY PEENYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 114, 143, 144,
147, 148, 302, 201, 120B READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC
AND SECTION 25(1)(B)(b) OF ARMS ACT, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-67), BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.381/2022.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused Nos.13 and 14, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No. 341/2021 registered by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 201, 120B read with section 149 of IPC and Section 25(1)(B)(b) of Arms Act, pending on the file of LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-
67), Bengaluru in S.C.No.381/2022.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent -State. 3
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Radha, the sister of the deceased Anand, filed a complaint to the police on 24.10.2021 alleging that her brother deceased was said to be involved in criminal cases in Peenya Station Limits and there were so many enemies for her brother. On 24.10.2021 she had gone to some other place and while coming back, there were so many people gathered in their street and she asked one of the known person Dharma, who informed that the accused persons said to have committed murder of her brother with deadly weapons and went away. After registering case against accused Nos.1 to 7 and others names were entered in FIR. Later, the police arrested accused No.8 and also these petitioners on 02.11.2021. They were remanded to judicial custody. Their bail petition came to be rejected. Hence they are before this Court.
4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the petitioners are innocent of alleged offences and have been falsely implicated and there is no specific overt act against them for having actively participated in committing the murder of deceased. The allegation against accused No.13 is only that, he has brought accused persons in his Mahindra XUV vehicle and took them back. Accused No.14 came in the motorcycle Honda deo and it is stated that he was guarding the place of incident with Long (Sword). After the murder of the deceased they went back in the same vehicles. There is nothing recovered from the accused No.14 and vehicle was seized from only accused No.13 and he has not committed any offence. Investigation is completed, charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner/accused are in custody for more than ten months. The mother 5 of accused No.13 is suffering from cancer. Therefore prayed for granting bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP seriously objected the bail petition and prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
6. Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the records, which reveals it is an admitted fact that Anand was done to homicidal death. As per the post mortem report, there were serious injuries found on the various parts of the body including the head and he died due to multiple injuries. There are five eye witnesses CW5 to CW10 who had categorically stated that these accused persons came in two cars, that is one Innova Car as well as Mahindra XUV car. The accuse No.13 was driving the Xuv car and accused No.14 came in the motor cycle and accused No.14 guarded the place of occurrence and not allowed any 6 persons go near the place of incident, whereas accused No.1 to 9 had actively participated in committing the murder of the deceased. Accused No.1 and 2 said to be rowdy sheeter, the deceased is also said to be a rowdy sheeter in Peenya Police Station limits. There was rivalry between the two rowdy gangs and the murder was committed on the background of the previous enmity between them. Of course accused No.13 not used any weapons for killing the deceased, but he brought other accused in his car and after commission of the murder they went away in the same car. The accused No.14 came in the motorcycle along with accused No.12 and said to have guarded place of occurrence with weapons by not allowing others to come near the place of killing the deceased. The manner of assault made by accused Nos.1 to 8 and 9 had brutally killed the deceased with deadly weapons in the presence of eye witnesses in 7 the public where so many people had gathered. If accused persons are gang members of the rowdy sheeter accused Nos.1 and 2, it cannot be said that they do not have any knowledge of conspiracy of committing murder of the deceased, but they have given a part of role for guarding the others for not allowing anybody to enter the place of occurrence and accused No.13 brought accused persons in the vehicle and took them back in the said vehicle. Also accused No.4 said to have destroyed the evidence by throwing the weapons used by him and it was not able to recover by the police. Ofcourse investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. It reveals there was a gang war between two rowdy groups and if they are granted bail, there is every possibility of tampering, threatening the witnesses and also committing similar offences, are not ruled out. That apart there is every chances of attack by the rival 8 groups on these two petitioners, which is also not ruled out. Therefore, I am of the view that accused Nos.13 and 14 are not entitled for bail.
Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for bail. Accordingly, criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV