Karnataka High Court
Sanni S/O Venkataranagayya Motakuri vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101120/2019
BETWEEN:
SANNI S/O VENKATARANAGAYYA MOTAKURI
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O: NO.275, GANDHIWADA,
NEAR A.B.M. CHURCH,
JANATA COLONY, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI,
(NOW HE IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T. R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HUBBALLI KESHWAPUR P.S.,
R/BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ON
BAIL, IN C.C.NO.386/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
JMFC II-COURT, HUBBALLI, IN ARISING OUT OF HUBBALLI,
KESHWAPUR P.S. CRIME NO.04/2019, FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 326, 307, 302 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No.4/2019 of Keshwapur Town Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 307, 302 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. The averments of the complaint are that, on 13.01.2019 at about 7.30 pm, the complainant along with friend Uttam Gopal Bongale, after consuming Alcohol came to the Railway ground to see the dance programme. The dance programme came to an end and public were moving out of the ground. Both the complainant as well as his friend started to go from :3: there at about 10.45 pm. While so going, his friend went to bring his vehicle from parking place. By that time, he came with his bike and said somebody have slit his throat and at that time, three persons who are around 20-25 years have run away from there. Immediately with an intention to admitting him to the hospital, while going in bike, he fell from the bike unconsciously. The complainant took an auto and admitted his friend to Vivekananda Hospital and subsequently, on 14.01.2019, he died because of the injuries. On the basis of the complaint a case is registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is his further submission that, when the complaint was registered, it is against unknown persons. Only when the vehicles were sized and accused No.1 was apprehended, only on :4: the basis of the voluntary statement of the accused No.1, accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been apprehended. It is his further submission that, the said incident has taken place in a spur of moment due to the sudden fight. They were not having any intention to cause the death and as such, the provisions of Section 302 of the IPC are not attracted and at the most it may attract Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. The petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent - State vehemently argued that accused No.1 assaulted with knife on the neck of the deceased and it is accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted on his shoulder. The accused persons have caused grievous injuries and the deceased died due to the injuries on 14.01.2019. The accused persons have involved in the :5: serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is her further submission that, when the vehicle of the deceased touched the unnumbered vehicle of accused persons, being enraged, accused persons have assaulted the deceased with knife and ultimately he died due to the injuries. There are no good grounds to release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail. On these grounds she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other material, there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and even the complaint has been registered against unknown persons. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, accused No.1 was apprehended and he disclosed about the alleged :6: incident. On close scrutiny of the charge sheet material, it is accused No.1 who assaulted with knife on the neck of the deceased and accused Nos. 2 and 3 assaulted with knife on the shoulder of the deceased. Even as could be seen from the post-mortem report, there were as many as four injuries found over the body of the deceased. The doctor has opined that the death is due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries sustained by the deceased. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 that the accused were not having any intention to cause the death and the provisions of Section 302 of the IPC are not attracted, but when the alleged incident has taken place, the accused persons were carrying button knives along with them. That itself indicates that they were well prepared and were having an intention to cause the death. At this premature stage, it is not a fit case to come to the :7: conclusion that the case falls under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
8. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that no grounds have been made out to release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail.
Hence the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab