Karnataka High Court
Madhusudhan @ Madhukar vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1449
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1687 of 2020
BETWEEN
MADHUSUDHAN @ MADHUKAR
@ MADHU @ MALIYALI MADHU
@ ROCK MADHU,
S/O. CHANDERBABU,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.639, KANAKANAGAR,
NEAR SHANIMAHATMA DEVASTHAN,
YELACHENAHALLI,
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ABDUL RASHEED S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY J.P. NAGAR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE - 560 078,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.No.151 of 2019 (S.C.No.1851 of 2019) REGISTERED BY
JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148,
341, 302, 120(B) AND 427 READ WITH 149 OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE AND SECTION 3(2) PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC
PROPERTY ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of bail and he is accused No.2 in Crime No.151/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 of IPC registered by the J.P. Nagar Police, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel Sri A.S.Kulkarni and learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Ramesh has lodged a complaint to the respondent-Police on 25.08.2019 3 alleging that his elder son Varun left the home in Suzuki Access Scooter and in the midnight, he came to know through his second son that his elder son Varun met with an accident and got admitted to KIMS Hospital. Immediately, he along with his family rushed to the hospital and found his elder son Varun and one Manjunath @ Tamma Manja died with grievous bleeding injuries all over the body. It is further alleged that in the year 2017, one Tablet Raghu was murdered by Tamma Manju and his associates. Since then, the younger brother of Tablet Raghu was having enmity with the said Tamma Manja and others. In this background, on 25.08.2019 at 11.30 p.m., when the son of the complainant Varun and Manjunath were proceeding in Suzuki Access Scooter at J.P.Nagar, the accused followed them in Hundai i-20 Car and waylaid them at 24th main road from opposite direction, dashed their car to the scooter and also assaulted them with sword, knife and committed murder of both Manjunath and Varun. Based upon the complaint, after 4 registering the case, the Police arrested the petitioner on 27.08.2019 remanded him to the judicial custody. The petitioner moved a bail petition before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.10781/2019, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The co- accused were already granted bail by this Court as well as by the Sessions Judge. The criminal case was registered naming only two persons and thereafter, the charge sheet came to be filed against 21 persons. The names of the alleged eyewitnesses by the prosecution were not at all mentioned in the remand applications filed by the Police, which shows that the names of the eyewitnesses were concocted by the Police while filing the charge sheet. The complaint came to be lodged on the basis of suspicion. The investigation is already completed. The presence of the 5 petitioner is not required. Therefore, he prayed for grant of bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected to the bail petition and contended that the names this petitioner and accused No.1 were found in the FIR. The petitioner is the main accused who along with other accused committed the murder of two persons on the background of previous enmity. Merely because the names of the eyewitnesses were not mentioned in the remand applications filed by the Police, that itself is not a ground to disbelieve the statement of the eyewitnesses at this stage and the Court cannot suspect the veracity of the statements of the eyewitnesses and the charge sheet at this stage without going to trial. The weapons were recovered from the accused on their voluntary statements. The accused were involved in serious offences. This petitioner is a rowdy-sheeter involved in six criminal cases registered in different Police Stations. If he is released on bail, he may commit similar offences and 6 he absconding from the case is not ruled out. Hence, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
6. Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the records shows that, on the complaint of father of the one of the deceased, the Police registered the case against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. There are eyewitnesses to the incident as per the charge sheet filed by the Police. CWs.7, 9, 10 and 14 are the eyewitnesses. They have stated before the Police regarding the commission of offence by the petitioner and other accused persons. The charge sheet material goes to show that this incident took place on the background of murder of one Tablet Raghu and there was enmity between the brother of the Tablet Raghu and Tamma Manja and others. On that background, the accused person one Narendra and this petitioner along with other accused brutally attacked Varun and Manjunath and committed their murder by using deadly weapons. The name of this 7 petitioner is mentioned in the FIR. After the investigation, the Police have filed the charge sheet for various offences including Section 302 of IPC. The eyewitnesses have given statements about the incident. Though the co-accused persons were granted bail by this Court and the Sessions Court only on the ground that there are no overt acts attributed against those accused persons and their names were not been mentioned in the FIR as also the eyewitnesses have not mentioned their names, whereas the statements of eyewitnesses goes to show the involvement of this petitioner in the commission of double murder. This petitioner is also involved in six criminal cases registered in various Police Stations and he is an habitual offender. Merely because the names of the eyewitnesses were not mentioned in the remand applications submitted by the Police to the Magistrate for extension of the custody under Section 167 of Cr.P.C., that by itself is not a ground to disbelieve or suspect the statements of the eyewitnesses until they are subjected 8 to cross-examination during the trial. The Police might have not stated the names of the eyewitnesses in the remand applications to safeguard the interest of the prosecution and protect the eyewitnesses from being attacked by the accused or their relatives. Therefore, the statements of the eyewitnesses or the averments mentioned in the remand applications cannot be contradicted while considering the bail petition. No opinion on the merits of the case shall be expressed by the Court while considering the bail application. The Court is required to verify whether any prima facie case is made out or not against the accused and the gravity of the offence committed by the accused persons. On perusal of the entire material and the allegations made against the accused, this petitioner is a rowdy-sheeter being involved in more than six cases registered in various Police Stations. It appears that there is a gang war between the rival groups resulting in the commission of double murder. The offence is heinous in nature punishable with death or imprisonment of life. If the 9 petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of the petitioner committing similar offences and tampering with the prosecution witnesses is not ruled out. The ground of parity is not available to the accused. Therefore, I hold that it is not a fit case for exercising the discretionary relief of granting bail to the accused. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE mv