Karnataka High Court
Mahesha V @ Maggi vs State Of Karnataka By on 16 January, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9069/2017
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9527/2017
IN CRL.P.NO.9069/2017
BETWEEN:
MAHESHA.V @ MAGGI,
S/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/O NO.06, 2ND CROSS,
KANAKADASA LAYOUT,
LINGARAJAPURA,
BENGALURU-560084.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI BASAVARAJU T A., ADV.,)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BANASAWADI POLICE,
BENGALURU-560033
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT BENGALURU-560001.
(REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIOER ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.568/2017 OF BANASWADI POLICE
STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFECE P/U/S 143, 147,
302, 120B R/W 149 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P.NO.9527/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SANTHOSH S.C.,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
S/O CHIDAMBARAM,
R/AT NO.347, 14TH CROSS,
OLD BAGALURU LAYOUT,
LINGARAJAPURA,
BENGALURU-560084.
2. SANJAY.S.
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
S/O K.SAMPATH KUMAR,
R/AT NO.9/7, 4TH 'D' CROSS,
KARIYANAPALYA,
LINGARAJAPURA,
BAGNALORE-560084.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADV.,)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE BANASWADI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIOERS ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.568/2017 OF BANASWADI POLICE
STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFECE P/U/S 143, 147,
302, 120B R/W 149 OF IPC AND ETC.,
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Since these two petitions are in respect of same crime and since common questions of law and facts are involved in these two petitions, they are taken up together to dispose of them by this common order and to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and law.
2. Crl.P.9069/2017 is filed by petitioner/accused No.4 and Crl.P.9527/2017 is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7, both these petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 302, 120B read with 149 of IPC, 4 registered in respondent - police station Crime No.568/2017. Deceased is one Vikram and the complainant is the wife of the deceased.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused in respect of both the petitions and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in both the bail petitions, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
5. The complainant is not an eye-witness, she was informed by some other persons. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, C.W.2-Anub S/o Jaganath is an eye-witness to the incident, whose statement is said to have been recorded on 11.10.2017. Perusing the statement of C.W.2, no 5 doubt, he has spoken about the presence of the petitioners herein along with other accused persons, totally 10 persons. But insofar as the overt-act is concerned, it is stated by the alleged eye-witness that accused No.2 instigated accused No.1 to eliminate the deceased and because of that reason, accused No.1 took a hollow brick and thrown it on the head of the deceased on number of times.
6. No doubt, there are allegations in so far as the petitioners are concerned that they have also assaulted with their upper and lower limbs. Petitioners have denied the allegations made in the complaint and prosecution case contending that they are innocent and there is false implication in the case. They have undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.
6
7. I have perused the PM report. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body, has noticed seven injuries over the body of the deceased and he gave the opinion that death was due to shock as a result of head injury sustained. Therefore, looking to these materials, I am of the opinion that there is a prima-facie case as against accused Nos.1 and 2. Insofar as petitioners herein are concerned, though there is an allegation that they have assaulted the deceased with their limbs, same was denied by the petitioners. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, I am of the opinion that these are fit cases to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. Petitioners/accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 respectively are ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 302, 120B read with 149 of 7 IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.568/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR