Karnataka High Court
Shivakumar @ Bhoja vs State Of Karnataka on 14 June, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3743/2018
BETWEEN:
Shivakumar @ Bhoja
Aged about 31 years,
S/o Late Srikantaiah
R/at Chakkere Village,
Malur Hobli,
Channapatna Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
Presently R/at No.187,
72nd Cross, Near 15E Bus Stop,
Kumaraswamy Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 036.
...Petitioner
(By Sri.Mohan Kumar.D, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka by
Kaggalipura Police
Represented by
State Public Proseuctor
City Civil Court Complex,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
2
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.1/2018 (C.C.No.2821/2018) of Kaggalipura P.S.,
Ramanagara District for the offence P/U/S 120B, 302
read with 149 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is accused No.4.
2. Charge sheet is laid against the petitioner and other accused alleging that accused No.1 having come to know that the deceased Naveen Kumar was keeping watch over his movements, entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Nos.2 to 5 and in furtherance thereof, on 31.12.2017 after the new year party accused Nos.1 to 5 took the deceased to the house of CW9 and accused No.3 held the tuft of the deceased and slashed his neck with a dragger and thereafter accused No.3 assaulted the deceased with the same 3 dragger on his thighs and hips. Accused No.2 assaulted him with a long all over the body, as a result, the deceased died on the spot.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP.
4. Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of objections, but has orally opposed the petition.
5. Investigation is completed. Charge sheet is laid against ten accused persons. Accused Nos.5 to 10 are absconding. Accused Nos.1 to 5 are in custody. The prosecution case is rested on circumstantial evidence, namely, one the deceased was last seen in the company of accused Nos.1 to 5 after the midnight party. CW3 is examined in support of this fact. The second circumstance is the recovery of a long, dragger and mobile. This recovery is effected jointly from accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 and the last circumstance relied on by 4 the prosecution is the chance finger prints said to have been lifted from the spot of offence tallying with the specimen finger prints of accused No.4.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the above circumstances are sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. Though the prosecution has relied on the finger prints/thumb impression of the accused as one of the circumstances, but there is no material to show as to when and from which place the said chance finger prints were lifted. The motive for the offence is directed only against accused No.1 and hence, he contends that having regard to the nature of the evidence relied on by the prosecution, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
7. Learned HCGP is unable to point out as to when and how the chance finger prints of the petitioner was lifted. Charge sheet contains only the opinion of the expert. The other recovery relied on by the 5 prosecution is a joint recovery attributed to all the three accused persons. Though the injuries suffered by the petitioner relate to the weapon alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner but having regard to over all circumstances of the case, in my view, the prosecution has to go a long way to establish the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence.
8. The Learned HCGP submits that the prosecution is not in possession of any material to show that the petitioner is involved in any other offence. Thus, the petitioner being a first offender and having regard to the nature of the allegations made against him and the character of the evidence that is required to be collected in proof thereof, it is not proper to extend the custody of the petitioner solely as punishment. The presence of the petitioner for trial could be secured by imposing necessary conditions 6
9. Hence, the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed.
a) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on obtaining a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
b) He shall appear before the court as and when required.
c) He shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
d) He shall not get himself involved in any similar offences.
e) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.7
If any of these conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE UN/AV