Karnataka High Court
Muniraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 July, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3081/2018
BETWEEN:
Muniraju,
S/o Nagaraju,
Aged about 38 years,
R/a Jayadeva Ramanagar,
Hulimangala Post,
Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru-560105.
...Petitioner
(By Sri.Chandrahasa Rai.B, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
By Electronic City Police Station,
Bengaluru Rural.
...Respondent
(By Sri.S.Vishwa Murthy, HCGP)
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.236/2017 of Electronic City Police Station,
Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 302
R/w 34 of IPC.
2
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner is seeking an order of bail in Crime No.236/2017.
2. Investigation is completed and chargesheet is laid against the petitioner under Section 302 of IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader has not filed any statement of objections but has orally opposed the petition.
5. The deceased was a JCB driver working under accused. According to the prosecution, on 17.08.2017 at about 07.00 p.m., the deceased left the house with accused and thereafter he was not to be seen. His dead body was traced in a vacant shed at 3 Bingipura Road, on 18.08.2017 at about 7.00 p.m., by the brother of the deceased. Investigation was taken up and the petitioner/accused herein was arrested on 27.08.2017. In the course of investigation, CW-19 was examined and according to him, on 17.08.2017, he dropped accused and the deceased near the aforesaid shed. He has further stated that accused assaulted the deceased with hands and thereafter assaulted him indiscriminately with a wooden club. The post mortem report indicates that the deceased had sustained as many as 15 injuries and he died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple blunt injuries sustained.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was a JCB driver and was well built and therefore 15 injuries found on his body, could not have been inflicted by a single person much less by accused herein. The statement of CW-19 came to be 4 recorded on 19.08.2017. There is no explanation for not disclosing the incident either to the family members of the deceased or to the police on 17/18.08.2017 if the incident had taken place in his presence. CW-19 is a propped witness, hence, seeks enlargement of the petitioner on bail. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Mr.Brahmananda Nanda reported in AIR 1976 SC 2488; Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2013 6 SCC 417; Bachhu Narain Singh vs. Naresh Yadav and Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 3055 and State of Karnataka vs. Chand Basha reported in 2015 (4) Crimes 48 (SC).
7. Learned HCGP submits that there is strong motive against the petitioner. There is direct evidence of the wife of the deceased to the effect that the deceased was taken by accused and since then, he did 5 not return home. The club used for the commission of the offence is seized. Eye-witness has squarely implicated the accused. The vehicle driven by the accused to the spot of offence is also seized and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for an order of bail.
8. Considered the submissions, perused the chargesheet papers. As already noted above, the prosecution has relied on the circumstance of the deceased last seen in the company of accused. The wife of the deceased at the earliest point of time has stated that deceased had gone out of the house in the company of accused. CW-19 has also corroborated this fact. As regard to the delay in recording his statement, the same can be tested only through trial. At this juncture, no motive could be ascribed to CW-19 to falsely implicate the accused herein. No such material is either forthcoming in the chargesheet. The deceased is alleged to have died on account of blunt injuries 6 sustained, which again is in accordance with the version of CW-19. The club used for the commission of offence is seized at the instance of the petitioner. Even though, learned counsel would contend that it was not a pre-meditated act, the above circumstances clearly indicate that the assault was made with an intention to cause the death of deceased. In the said facts and circumstances, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the prima-facie material collected in proof of the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence, this is not a fit case to admit the petitioner to bail. Hence, petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE dn/-