Karnataka High Court
Tejas T S vs State By Myco Layout Police on 24 July, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3226/2020
BETWEEN:
Tejas T S
S/o Somashekar
Aged about 26 years
R/o Maruthi Nilaya
6th Main Sadashivanagar
Tumkuru Dist - 563 130. ... Petitioner
(By Sri Syed Akbar Pasha, Advocate)
AND:
State by Myco Layout Police
R/p By State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru - 560 001. ... Respondent
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.59/2020 registered MICO layout police station,
Bengaluru, for the offence p/u/s 302 R/w Sec.34 of IPC.
2
This criminal petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Learned counsel for petitioner appears through video conferencing.
2. Learned HCGP also appears through video conferencing and submits that copy of the petition was served on him only last week. However, on ascertaining it is seen that copy of the petition has already been served on 08.07.2020.
3. Brief facts of the case are that a case came to be registered in Cr.No.59/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC against the petitioner and another. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant was working as a delivery boy in Zomato Company and he is a resident of N.S.Palya; he is familiar with one Sunil and he was spending time 3 with him during his leisure time. That on 28.02.2020, the complainant was on duty in the early morning at about 5.00 a.m. and when he arrived near 1st Cross, 16th Main, 2nd stage, BTM Layout, Bengaluru, he received a message to his mobile for supply of food and when he moved to collect the order from Annapoorneshwari Tiffin Centre, he noticed one person was sleeping facing his face towards ground and was crumbling from pain. At that time, an ambulance came to the spot. The complainant parked his motorcycle and went to help the ambulance people to shift the injured into the ambulance. While shifting the injured, the complainant noticed that the injured was his friend Sunil suffering with bleeding injury on his stomach and intestine had come out and he was taken to Health India Hospital, Tavarakere and the said Hospital authorities referred to shift the injured to St. John's Hospital on account of seriousness of the situation. 4
4. While the injured and the complainant were on the way to St. John's Hospital, the complainant on enquiry came to know that one Tejas and his roommate Praveen quarreled with each other and in that incident Praveen stabbed the injured with knife on his stomach.
5. Based on the complaint, a case came to be registered and investigation was taken up. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused No.1 and CW-23 Vishal had developed enmity in relation to delivery of food order and Sunil was trying to compromise between them in a vacant place located in BTM Layout, N.S. Palya on 27.02.2020 between 9.00 p.m. and 1.00 a.m. At that time, Sunil quarrlled with accused No.2 and hit him from his hands. Due to this, Accused No.2 along with Accused No.1 came to Sairam PG and had drinks with the deceased Sunil and 5 thereafter went near Vegacity Mall and had food from the roadside (footpath) and again both went to PG around 4.00 am and the said incident took place during the said period. As stated above, both accused No.1 and accused No.2 grouped together when deceased went to hit accused No.2 with knife, accused No.2 escaped for which accused No.1 sustained injuries. Later, accused No.2 came and caught hold Sunil from back side, accused No.1 stabbed Sunil with knife after snatching the same from Sunil inflicting serious injuries and thereafter both accused Nos.1 and 2 ran away from the spot. Post mortem report is not available in the case. Being unable to recover from the injuries, Sunil died on 04.03.2020. The petitioner was arrested on 29.02.2020, who has filed this petition seeking enlargement on bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that incident at the most might have happened in a spur of a moment and it does not attract offence 6 punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. According to him, death was due Hemorrhage septicemia shock. He further submits that the complaint is lodged by one Nagaraja J., who cannot be considered as eye witness to the incident as there is no clear evidence to hold that accused No.1 committed the offence. The sequence of events also suggest that the case is based on circumstantial evidence.
7. It is seen that the present petitioner was arrested on 29.02.2020. The stay of the petitioner in judicial custody, completion of the investigation in the matter and outcome of the case cannot be considered to be a ground for granting bail to the petitioner. At this stage, I do not find that the petitioner has made out grounds for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected. 7 However, liberty is given to petitioner to move an application after completion of the evidence of the complainant and material eye witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE TL