Karnataka High Court
Shivalinga vs State Of Karnataka on 7 September, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7183/2022
BETWEEN:
SHIVALINGA
S/O SHIVARAMU
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O 7TH WARD MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR
SHIVASHYALA NILAYA
4TH CROSS, V V NAGARA
MANDYA CITY PIN-571 401. ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.RAKSHA KEERTHANA K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION
REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KRISHNAKUMAR K K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.84/2021
(CR.NO.70/2021) OF MANDYA WEST P.S., MANDYA
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341,
342, 323, 324, 504, 506, 302, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND
SEC.75 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT PENDING ON THE FILE
2
OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MANDYA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in Crime No.70/2021 registered by Mandya Town Circle Police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 323, 324, 504, 506, 302 and 149 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act now pending on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in S.C.No.84/2021.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Darshan and daughter of accused No.1 Manvita were in 3 love. On 14.04.2021 at about 11.00 p.m., they were chatting in the mobile and as she called deceased Darshan, he went to her house at 0.44 hours on 15.04.2021. Thereafter, on knowing the arrival of Darshan, petitioner/accused No.1 along with other accused persons assaulted him all over his body with weapons-pestle, bamboo clubs and pickaxe by tying his hands and legs. Further they have kicked him and assaulted with hands. Due to the said assault, the deceased became unconscious and he was shifted to MIMS and later to Victoria hospital at Bengaluru. Further, on the same day, at 10.45 a.m, the Darshan succumbed to the injuries caused by accused persons. Hence, the complaint is lodged against the petitioners. After registering the case by the respondent-Police in crime No.70/2021 for the alleged offences, the petitioner/accused No.1 was arrested on 15.04.2021. The petitioner/accused No.1 has approached the 4 Sessions Court for grant of bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner/accused No.1 is innocent of the alleged offences and even otherwise, there are no ingredients against the petitioner/accused No.1 for the alleged offences. Though in the FIR, it is stated that the petitioner/accused No.1 himself has assaulted the deceased Darshan but in the charge sheet, it is stated as accused No.3 has assaulted the deceased Darshan who was already granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the Sessions Court. He was in custody for more than 1 year 4 months. The learned counsel further submits that there is no motive, preparation, moreover there is no enmity with the deceased Darshan. Hence, he prayed for allowing of this petition.
5
5. Per contra, learned HCGP seriously object the bail petition and contended that there are eye witnesses to the incident including Abhishek who is a neighbour. They came along with the deceased Darshan and deceased went to the house of the petitioner/accused No.1 and this petitioner/accused No.1 had assaulted the deceased Darshan and caused injuries on the head and the petitioner/accused No.1 had installed the CCTV in the house and the same is disconnected at the time of incident. If the petitioner/accused No.1 is granted bail, he would commit similar offences and he being an influential person and a Corporator, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses and also not to release him until the examination of eye witnesses to the incident. Hence, he prays for dismissal of bail petition. 6
6. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, of course the accused Nos.2,7,9 to 17 are already granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.7283/2021 dated 08.12.2021. Subsequently, accused No.3 was also granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.8964/2021 dated 10.12.2021. This Court has granted bail to accused No.4 by relying upon the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.8964/2021. Though this Court has rejected the bail application of some of the accused persons, the Sessions Judge has granted bail in respect of the said accused persons. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the daughter of the petitioner/accused No.1 was invited the deceased Darshan to her house and when both of them were staying together in the midnight, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner/accused No.1 and inturn 7 the petitioner/accused No.1 called the persons who are staying in the same compound. It was categorically mentioned in the charge sheet that the petitioner/accused No.1 along with other accused persons has assaulted the deceased Darshan with deadly weapons. Of course, the learned counsel submission that with a sudden provocation, he ought to have not been assaulted the deceased and there is no need to call all persons to assault the deceased but the petitioner/accused No.1 intentionally switch off the CCTV, which may capture the entire incident. Though the other accused persons was on bail, this petitioner/accused No.1 is an influential person and he is having a name in the society and though the daughter of petitioner/accused No.1 also committed suicide at Children Home, Mandya by leaving behind the death note mentioning the names of one Ashok Pai, Dileep and Shivaratna Venkatesh. Considering the 8 facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of threatening the prosecution witnesses and also till the examination of the material witnesses cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for granting bail.
Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSD