Karnataka High Court
Ajith Brahma @ Ajith vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 328
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1361/2020
BETWEEN:
Ajith Brahma @ Ajith,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Rachan Brahma,
R/o at Durgapura Village,
Bijini Police Station,
Chirang District,
Assam State - 783 373.
...Petitioner
(By Sri.Chandrahasa Rai B., Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
By Hulimavu Police Station,
Represented by State P.P.,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri.R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.244/2018 (S.C.No.659/2019) of Hulimavu P.S.,
/Bengaluru City For the offence P/U/S 302 of IPC.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. In the instant petition, the petitioner is arraigned as accused in SC.No.659/2019 (arising out of Cr.No.244/2018 of Hulimavu Police Station) on the file of LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that the accused-Ajith Bramha and the deceased persons by name Sydul Haq and Bikram Bora were working as security guards in 'Wall Mark City Valley', a Construction Agency, situated near Doddakkamanahalli Village, Tejasvi Nagar, 2nd Phase, Bangalore 3 surrounding, coming within the jurisdiction of Hulimavu Police station. It is stated that on the date of incident, particularly on 25.09.2018 the said accused person was doing security work at 'Wall Mark City Valley' project, in the night hours, at about 8 PM, at that time, deceased persons came and relieved the accused from duty. At the same time, one Mr.Manoj Kumar, who is Security Filed Officer came to that particular place and enquired about the accused. The deceased told that the said Ajith's whereabouts are not known to them. Immediately, the said Manoj Kumar called the accused over phone and came to know that near City Valley project, few Security Guards have caught hold the Ajith Bramha. Immediately, the said Manoj had gone to that particular place and brought back him to City Village security room and questioned him. Then the accused told him that he is scared of going near City Valley Security room. Then the said Manoj told to accused to stay back in the security room 4 and on the next day he will shift him to NICE Road Security Room. At that time, deceased- Sydul Haq and Bikram Bora were also present. Mr.Manoj told them that to care of the accused and left the place.
4. In the morning at about 7.15 pm, on 26.09.2018, the said Manoj received the phone call from Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh saying that there was murder of two persons i.e. Sydul Haq and Bikram Bora in the security room. Immediately the said Manoj informed to Security Supervisor-Santhosh. By the time Security supervisor reach to the spot, police have also come to that particular place and found accused-Ajith Brahma was missing. On the basis of these allegations, the respondent-Police have registered a case and investigating the matter and submitted the charge- sheet.
5. The prosecution has relied upon the last scene theory and post mortem report which supported 5 the whole story. Deceased got serious injuries on the head and other parts of the body. Blood stained clothes of the deceased are seized. An Iron rod also seized from the spot after arrest of the accused and blood stained pant and shirts recovered from him. FSL report is awaited as the police have sent blood stained clothes of the deceased and accused so also the iron rod for testing.
6. Under the above stated facts and circumstances, last seen theory i.e. what happened at night hours i.e. at about 8 PM but dead bodies are found very morning and there is no explanation offered by the accused at this stage. FSL report is awaited pertaining to the blood stained clothes and iron rod. Therefore, in my opinion, at this stage, petitioner has not made out a case to enlarge him on bail.
7. However, it is made clear that after filing of FSL report, the petitioner is at liberty to move the trial 6 Court for grant of regular bail. In that eventuality, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
With these observations, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SB