Karnataka High Court
P Naveena @ P.Naveen Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 September, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5183 OF 2017
BETWEEN
P.NAVEENA @ P NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O PUTTASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT KANVA VILLAGE
KOOTAGAL HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 571 511
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADV., FOR
SRI.RAMESHA H.N., ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADDUR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.173/2017 OF MADDUR P.S.,
MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is in judicial custody since 02.05.2017 in Crime No.173/2017 registered by the respondent-police. During the pendency of the petition, charge sheet is submitted to the court against him in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is, petitioner was a far relative of the deceased late Shivaraju and in that context he used to frequent his house and used to freely chat with his wife-CW2. This was not to the liking of the deceased and he had objected his visits in his absence. However, deceased had liaisoned for purchase of a residential site by the petitioner. There was a proposal to arrange marriage of the 3 petitioner with the niece of the deceased. On 01.05.2017, the petitioner had come to the house of the deceased and CW2, the wife of the deceased who was doing household work in the kitchen was chatting with him. The main door was bolted from inside. The deceased came home at 4.00 PM and knocked the door. Before the CW2 washed her hands and opened the door, the deceased himself broke opened the window glass and pushed his hand through the broken window opened the bolt, rushed into the house and deplored the petitioner for visiting his house in his absence. He alleged that he is about to spoil his family life and when CW2 intervened between them, the deceased took a chopper lying in the hall and was about to assault CW2: the petitioner with an intention to rescue CW2 snatched the chopper and assaulted on the head of the deceased. Due to which he suffered fracture and was bleeding. CW2 ran out of the hosue and looked for the help from neigbours. But nobody was available. The petitioner fled away with the chopper. 4 However, CW2 arranged for a autorikshaw headed with deceased for the hospital, on the way to the hospital, the petitioner had breathed his lost.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Post Mortem report, the petitioner had suffered four injuries. The dura was intact. It was not an indiscriminate assault in the rage of the moment. Accepting the case of prosecution in its whole, the incident must have occurred at the spur of the moment, otherwise the deceased would have done away of his wife with the chopper. The learned JMFC has recorded the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of CW2 who is a sole eyewitness. In that view of the matter, there is no question of winning over the witness. The petitioner is a young man of 25 years, since the investigation is complete, he may be enlarged on bail and he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on him.
5
4. Learned HCGP opposes the petition and submits that it is not a single assault, the petitioner has assaulted four times on the vital part of the body of the deceased. It is a clear case attracting major punishment under Section 302 of IPC. CW2 has categorically stated about the overt act committed by this petitioner. If enlarged on bail, this petitioner will disappear or he will prevail upon the prosecution witnesses.
5. In the light of the above submissions, I have perused the charge sheet papers.
6. The CW2 being the sole eyewitness, have not attributed any previous enimity or ill-will between the deceased and the accused, as per her statement it was an instantaneous incident and the weapon allegedly used for commission of the offence is recovered at the instance of the petitioner by the IO. He is not shown to have any criminal records. He said to be working as a security guard. If his 6 presence can be secured before the court during trial on the hearing dates, there is no impediment to allow the petition.
Accordingly, petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:
1) Petitioner is enlarged on bail on executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh Rupees only) with two local sureties for the satisfaction of the concerned court.
2) He shall attend the court regularly on all the hearing dates.
3) He shall not prevail upon the prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv