Deepu N vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 10983 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5189/2022

BETWEEN:

DEEPU N.
S/O LATE NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT 5TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE ROAD
IBBALURU VILLAGE, AGARA POST
SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 102.                          ... PETITIONER

             (BY SRI JAGADEESHA H., ADVOCATE)
AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ELECTRONCITY POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 001.                       ... RESPONDENT

               (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.262/2021 (C.C.NO.7831/2022) OF ELECTRONIC CITY
P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFENCES P/U/S. 120B, 143, 144,
147, 148, 150, 341, 427, 307, 302 R/W. 149 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 4, 25(1-b)(b) OF ARMS ACT AND ETC.
                                2



     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. seeking

regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.262/2021 of Electronic

City Police Station, Bangalore for the ofences punishable under

Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 150, 341, 427, 307, 302

R/W. 149 of IPC and Sections 4, 25(1-b)(b) of Arms Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that there was an ill-will between the deceased and accused

No.1 since accused No.1 married the deceased and thereafter

took the daughter of the deceased from the house of the

deceased, he was staying along with this petitioner till the date

of committing the murder of the victim. The case of the

prosecution is also that accused Nos.1 to 5, assaulted the victim

and accused Nos.6 to 8 covering those persons, facilitated

accused Nos.1 to 5 to commit the murder. It is also alleged that

accused No.1 was having illicit relationship with this petitioner.

Hence, the victim thrown out this petitioner and accused No.1

from the house. Hence, they were having grudge against the

victim and also with an intention to knock off the property of the

victim committed the murder. Hence, invoked the offences

punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 147, 148, 150, 341,

427, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 4,

25(1B), (b) of Indian Arms Act, 1959.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that the allegation against this petitioner is that he

was also conspired with other accused persons in eliminating the

victim but he has not stepped out from the vehicle and there is

no overt act against this petitioner. The learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that the investigation is completed and

charge sheet also filed hence, there is no need of further

custodial trial and the counsel further submits that after the

incident of committing the murder only, this petitioner dashed

against the car of the victim and not at the time of committing

the murder and prayed to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the specific

allegation is made against this petitioner that he being the part

of the conspiracy and along with other accused persons he went

to the spot and carried the deadly weapons like long, dragger,

hockey bat and also wicket in his car only and accused persons

with the common object inflicted the injury on the victim and

this petitioner also dashed against the car in which the victim

was traveling along with CW1 to 4 as a result, the car of the

victim went and dashed against the road divider and sustained

damages hence, the only allegation of conspiracy against this

petitioner cannot be accepted since he was also part of the

unlawful assembly and in furtherance of common object, the

other accused persons went with the weapons and committed

the murder and the learned HCGP submits that PM report reveals

that it is a barbaric act and inflicted injury on the victim, in total,

he has sustained 46 injuries hence, there is a prima facie

material against the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the

petition.

6. Having heard the respective counsel appearing for

the parties and also on perusal of the material available on

record it discloses that the specific allegation is made against

this petitioner is that he is also part of conspiracy and apart from

the said conspiracy, he not only took the other assailants but

also carried deadly weapons in his car and this petitioner only

dashed against the car of the victim as a result, the victim

vehicle went and dashed against the road divider and eye-

witnesses CW1 to 4 were escaped from the spot hence, the very

contention of the petitioner's counsel that only an allegation of

conspiracy against this petitioner cannot be accepted and other

contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that this petitioner

went to the spot after the incident and the said contention also

cannot be accepted. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in

(2021) 6 SCJ 227 in the case of KUMER SINGH VS. STATE

OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER in paragraph 14 also the Apex

Court held that it is required to be noted that all the accused are

charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307

read with Section 149 of IPC. At this sage, the individual role of

the accused is not required to be considered when they are

alleged to have been the part of the unlawful assembly. The

Apex Court also in the judgment noted that there were 26

injuries found on the dead body of the deceased and 11 injuries

on the injured Vikram Singh by blunt and sharp weapons and

having considering the facts of the circumstances, more

particularly, when they charged for the offences punishable

under Sections 302 and 307 and also 147, 148 read with Section

149 of IPC, bail cannot be granted. In the case on hand also all

accused persons conspired with each other with an intention to

take away the life of the victim and inflicted injuries with the

deadly weapons as a result, the victim had sustained 46 injuries

and the same is a brutal attack and it is nothing but a blood

thirsty. When this petitioner is also part of the unlawful

assembly and he only took accused persons as well as the

deadly weapons in the vehicle in which he was driving as well as

he only dashed against the car of the victim. When such

material is available on record, it is not a fit case to exercise the

discretion in favour of the petitioner.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The bail petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SN