Karnataka High Court
Sunil Kumar @ Sunil vs State By on 13 August, 2020
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1659 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1 . SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNIL
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O CHENNAYYA
R/AT HILL HOUSE,
K.G.K. BALLAL ROAD,
PANJIMOGERU,
MANGALURU.
2 . PRAVEEN POOJARY
S/O PARAMESHWAR POOJARY
AGED 27 YEARS
R/AT KODIKAL,
NAGABRAMHA CHAVADI,
NARASAPPA COMPOUND,
MANGALURU.
3 . PREETHAM @ ABHI,
S/O LATE SHRIDHAR ANCAHN,
AGED 27 YEARS,
R/AT SHANKAPPA COMPOUND,
KALBHAHVI SUNKADA KATTE,
URWA STORE,
MANGALURU.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.KARUNAKARA ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY
P.S.I. OF KAVOOR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON
BAIL IN. CR.NO.02/2019 (S.C.NO.105/2019) REGISTERED BY
KAVOOR POLICE STATION, MANGALURU CITY, D.K. DISTRICT
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B), 302, 201 AND 212 R/W 34
OF IPC, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioners being the accused Nos. 1, 2 & 3 in Crime No.2/2019 of Kavoor Police Station, now pending in S.C.No.105/2019 for offences p/u/ss 120(B), 302, 201 & 212 r/w 34 of IPC are invoking the Bail Jurisdiction of this Court u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973, having suffered rejection of their claim for regular bail at the hands of learned VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, vide order dated 23.10.2019.
2. After service of notice, learned HCGP having represented the respondent - Police, fiercely opposes the bail petition contending that the offence of murder being heinous, is punishable with death or life imprisonment; there are several other cases against all these accused and those cases are again very serious; if petitioners are enlarged on bail, the peace & security in the society would be gravely threatened. So contending, she seeks dismissal of the petition.
3
3. Having heard the Learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, as also the original records produced by the police, this Court declines to admit the petitioners to bail for the following reasons:
a) there is a lot of force in the contention of the learned HCGP that the offences alleged against the petitioners are heinous and that, the Charge Sheet material prima facie shows their involvement in the perpetration of the crime of putting a young boy Mr.Rakesh by using dangerous weapon like the sword that too in a gruesome way; as between the security of the society and the liberty of the accused persons, the former overwrites the latter and therefore, the arguments structured on Fundamental Right to Life & Liberty do not much avail, since the said right is not absolute;
b) learned HCGP is more than justified in opposing the bail petition on the ground of the petitioners being the rowdy sheeters and habitual offenders whose enlargement on bail would not augur well to the peace & tranquility of the society; following are the criminal cases pending against the petitioners:
Crime No.5/2013 of Urva police station for offences punishable under section 324 r/w section 34 of IPC, Crime No.32/2014 of Urva police station for offences punishable 4 under sections 326, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of IPC; Crime No.215/2017 of Urva police station for offences punishable under section 27(b) of NDPS Act; Crime No.170/2014 of Bajpe police station for offences punishable under section 120(b) of IPC r/w sections 3 & 25 of Arms Act and Section 3 of KCOCA Act; Crime No.107/2018 of Urva police station for offences punishable under sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(a) of NDPS Act; Crime No.181/2015 of Mangaluru police station for offence punishable u/s 392 of IPC; Crime No.78/2016 of Mangaluru police station for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307 r/w 149 of IPC; Crime No.193/2017 of Urva police station for offence punishable under section 27(b) of NDPS Act; Crime No.93/2018 of Mysuru Alanahalli police station for offence punishable under section 20(b) of NDPS Act.
c) the learned trial judge at para 10 of his order has observed as under and that this Court concurs with the same, there being no ground to disagree:
"On perusal of material on record it shows that, this court has already rejected the bail application of accused No.4, who was not directly involved in the commission of the offence, he had only assisted the accused No.1 to 3. Wherein in this case if the charge sheet as well as the material placed by the prosecution perused carefully prima facie there is sufficient material against the accused No.1 to 3 for having committed the alleged offence. The photographs shows that the deceased has been brutally assaulted. In the facts and circumstances of the above case, if at this stage the bail is granted it gives a wrong signal to the society, because the people at large may think that they can do any offence and come out within a short period from the jail. Hence, by considering the grievous allegation made against the accused No.1 to 3 and the facts and circumstance of the case I hold accused No.1 to 3 are not entitled for bail. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 for consideration in negative."5
d) the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are falsely implicated in the case is bit difficult to accept, when the trial is yet to commence; what the Bail Court sees is the prima facie material placed on record in the form of Charge Sheet which points to the involvement of accused in the commission of crimes and the balancing of the larger security of the society qua the individual rights of the accused; whether presence of the accused can be secured for investigation & trial is also equally important.
e) Coleridge J., in MOD. LAW REV. pages 50-51, 1852 IE & B1 opines as under:
"I do not think that an accused party is detained in custody because of his guilt, but because there are sufficient probable grounds for the charge against him as to make it proper that he should be tried, and because the detention is necessary to ensure his appearance at trial .... It is a very important element in considering whether the party, if admitted to bail, would appear to take his trial; and I think that in coming to a determination on that point three elements will generally be found the most important:
the charge, the nature of the evidence by which it is supported, and the punishment to which the party would be liable if convicted".6
In the above facts & circumstances, the petition being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is. The observations hereinabove made shall not influence the trial of accused in any way, whatsoever, the same being confined to disposal of the bail petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE cbc