Karthik vs State By D. J. Halli P.S
2022 Latest Caselaw 8038 Kant

                           1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE

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

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4198/2022

BETWEEN

KARTHIK, S/O. RAMU
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT AMARAJYOTHI PALYA
SAARAYIPALYA
SHIVARAMA KARANTHA NAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 077
                                              ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V LAKSHMI KANTHA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE BY D. J. HALLI P.S.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
COURT COMPLEX
BANGALORE-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
CRIME NO.79/2020 OF DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 302, 143, 147, 148 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC
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.79/2020 of

Devarajeevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City for the

offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 read with

Section 149 of IPC.

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 is that due to ill-will

between the parties in respect of an earlier murder, this

petitioner by forming an unlawful assembly in furtherance of

common object with deadly weapons inflicted injuries on the

victim as a result, the victim succumbed to the injuries. Based

on the complaint, the police have registered the case against the

petitioner and other accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would vehemently contend that this petitioner has been arrayed

as accused No.4 and at the first instance, the name of this

petitioner has not been mentioned in the FIR and only during the

course of investigation, this petitioner's name has been shown

and the allegation against him is that he inflicted injury with the

knife snatching the same from accused No.3. The counsel also

would submit that though the prosecution relies upon the

statement of eye-witnesses i.e., CW13-16, their statements not

inspires the confidence of the Court that they were the eye-

witnesses and those witnesses are planted witness and TI

parade is also not conducted and also the witnesses have not

identified this petitioner and there is no specific overt act

allegation against this petitioner and prayed to allow the

petition.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that knife is

recovered at the instance of this petitioner and apart from that

the jerkin is seized and the said jerkin is also stained with blood

and his mobile is also seized and apart from that CW13-16 have

witnessed the incident and they have categorically stated before

the Investigating Officer that they have witnessed the incident of

committing the murder but they are not aware of the names of

the assailants and hence, there is a prima facie case against this

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 motive for committing murder that

the victim was an accused in the earlier murder case and when

he came out from the jail after three years, he was targeted and

inflicted injury. the prosecution mainly relies upon the

statements of CW13 to 16 as they are the eye-witnesses and

apart from that the recovery was made at the instance of this

petitioner i.e., knife as well as jerkin which contained blood and

FSL report is not yet received. When such being the case and

the recovery is made at the instance of this petitioner i.e., knife

and jerkin and also taking into note of the PM report, the cause

of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of which

the victim had sustained multiple 29 injuries and the same is

nothing but blood thirsty and when Section 149 of IPC is

invoked, the question of segregating the role of each accused

does not arise while considering the bail petition. The Apex

Court in the case of KUMER SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN

AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 CRL.L.J. 4244 wherein, in

paragraph 14 observed that it is required to be noted that all the

accused are charged for the offences punishable under Section

302 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC at this juncture, the

only role of the accused is not required to be considered when

they are alleged to have been part of the unlawful assembly.

Having considering the principles laid down in the judgment and

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

the discretion in favour of the petitioner under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C.

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

following:

ORDER The bail petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SN