Karnataka High Court
Prasanna T S vs State By Maddur Police Station on 8 July, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2867 OF 2021
BETWEEN
Prasanna T.S.,
S/o. Shivanna T.K.,
Aged about 35 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
R/o. Thoppanahalli Village,
Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District-571428
...Petitioner
(By Sri. R.K.Bhat, Advocate)
AND
State by Maddur Police Station,
Represented by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru,
Bengaluru - 560001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1,
Sri. N.Tejas, Advocate for defacto complainant)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.444/2018 (S.C.No.65/2019) of Maddur Police
Station, Mandya District for the offences punishable under
Section 143, 146, 148, 341, 307, 302, 120B, 201 read
with 149 of IPC.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
This is the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by accused no.1. He has been implicated of causing the death of one Prakash T.S. on 24.12.2018 at about 19.00 hours. Along with him, there are six more accused persons. The police have invoked the offences punishable under Sections 143, 146, 148, 341, 302, 307, 120B, 201, 114 r/w 149 IPC.
2. On 14.10.2020, this court rejected the application of the petitioner for bail coming to the conclusion that prima facie materials were available about the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence.
3
3.The defacto complainant and injured eye witness, Abhilash, who made a report to the police has made an application under Section 301 Cr.P.C. seeking permission to assist the High Court Government Pleader. To meet the ends of justice the said application is allowed.
4. Heard Sri. R.K.Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, High Court Government Pleader assisted by Sri. N.Tejas, advocate for defacto complainant.
5. Sri. R.K.Bhat, counsel for the petitioner raises two grounds. Firstly that accused no.2 has been released on bail. Therefore the ground of parity is applicable. Secondly that on the day when the incident is said to have taken place, the petitioner was an in-patient at Government Hospital, Mandya and in this regard documents have been produced. He submitted that in so far as accused no.2 is concerned, 4 the co-ordinate bench of this court granted bail to him on 20.10.2020 accepting his contention that at the time of incident, he was present elsewhere. In this case also, the petitioner was not present at the place of incident. He was in the hospital. He refers to some documents he has produced to argue that the petitioner was admitted to the hospital on 21.12.2018. The Xerox copy of the 'Rounds Order Book' maintained at the Government Hospital, Mandya shows that actually the petitioner was not discharged from the hospital, rather the police came to hospital and took the petitioner. This indicates that the police took the petitioner forcibly with them in order to falsely implicate him in the case. Therefore according to him, the petitioner was not involved in the incident and on this ground bail can be granted.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that according to the materials collected by 5 the investigating officer, the petitioner actually tried to get himself admitted to hospital on 21.12.2018 to create an evidence to show that on the day when the incident took place he was hospitalized. It was his preplan. He refers to the documents to fortify his argument that the petitioner made a concerted effort for creating the documents to prove his absence at the time of incident. The hospital records do not indicate that he was actually admitted. There are eye witnesses to the incident and they have clearly given statements that it was he who inflicted the injuries. Though bail has been granted to accused no.2, parity cannot be applied to the petitioner because he stands on a different footing.
7. When this court disposed of Crl.P.No.1342/2020 it was held that the materials collected by the investigating officer were sufficient enough to indicate prima facie, the involvement of the 6 petitioner in the commission of evidence. This time the petitioner has made an application for bail on a different stand, he states that on 21.12.2018 he got admitted to hospital and to this effect a document is produced. But this document does not disclose the date of his discharge. He has produced the Xerox copy of the 'Round Order Book'. Perusal of this book shows it is just a Xerox copy without containing the seal and signature of the authority who issued this. Therefore this book cannot be considered for appreciating the case of the petitioner. Even if it is perused, it is found that there are two persons with the name Prasanna at Sl.No.8 and Sl.No.11. Of course there is an entry at Sl.No.11 'Prasanna - Police taken'. Referring to this note at Sl.No.11, learned counsel argued it shows that the police came to the hospital on 27.12.2018 and took him away. In fact, the investigating officer has produced a letter issued by Mandya Institute of 7 Medical Science. In this letter it is stated that T.S. Prasanna i.e., the petitioner obtained the out-patient slip on 21.12.2018 to meet the doctor and to this effect there is an entry in the computer. He wanted to get admitted as in-patient, but the entries found in the computer do not indicate that he was admitted in the hospital as an in-patient in Ward No.7-8 and 11-
12. So if this letter is perused, the document that the petitioner has produced becomes doubtful to be believed.
8. It is true that accused no.2 has been released on bail. The co-ordinate bench of this court accepted the contention that he was present elsewhere when the incident took place. It was only after arriving at a prima facie satisfaction about the materials that he produced, this court granted bail to him. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the materials that he has 8 produced to prove that he was not present at the time of incident cannot be accepted. Therefore the ground of parity cannot be extended.
With these observations, I come to conclusion that this petition is devoid of merits. Hence petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE sd