Muthu Raj vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7364 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4175/2022

BETWEEN:

MUTHU RAJ
S/O LATE THANGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.151, HENDRY'S 2ND LANE,
COROMANDAL POST, K.G.F. - 563 118.
KOLAR DISTRICT.                           ... PETITIONER

         (BY SRI S.P.KULKARNI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
              SRI MANJUNATHA P.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS ROBERTSONPET POLICE STATION, K.G.F.,
NOW REPRESENTED BY S.P.P,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
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. 90/2021 OF ROBERTSONPET P.S., K.G.F., FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/Ss.143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 212, 201
R/W 149 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR (SITTING AT K.G.F).
                                    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/accused No.16 in Crime No.90/2021

of Robertsonpet Police Station, K.G.F., for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302,

212, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing 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 on 23.10.2021 at around 10:30 p.m, when the complainant,

deceased and others reached near Loodran Church, in front of

their Car, a car was stopped and suddenly caused the accident

on the backside of the vehicle. Hence, the driver of their Car

stopped the vehicle and the assailants have surrounded their

vehicle and assaulted with long and knife, as a result, he himself

sustained the injuries on the left cheek and the Car Driver

sustained the injuries on the right hand, and also inflicted the

injuries on the head of Ajay, as a result, he fell down and the

injured Rajkumar tried to escape from the spot and he was

chased from the accused persons and inflicted injuries and

immediately he was taken to the hospital, thereafter, he was

referred to Bengaluru Hospital and the injured succumbed to the

injuries. The police have registered the case, investigated the

matter and filed the charge sheet. In the charge sheet, the

specific allegations are made against accused Nos.1 to 8, this

petitioner and accused No.12 that they have chased the victim

into the passage in E.T. Block and assaulted with a long and

other accused persons repeatedly assaulted on his face, back

and other parts of the body, as a result, he sustained 18 injuries.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that this petitioner is in custody from the last 7

months and he also undergone heart surgery and no specific

overt act allegation is made against this petitioner and only an

allegation made is that along with other accused persons, he

also chased and inflicted injuries. Thereafter, after committing

the murder, screened the evidence by destroying the clothes and

also the weapons which they have used are thrown in the water

in the plastic bag. When there is no specific allegation against

the petitioner herein, he may be enlarged on bail. The learned

counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that accused

Nos.18 and 19 were enlarged on bail.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stressed

upon the statement of the alleged eye witnesses that there is a

discrepancy that they came to know about the incident but the

Court has to take into note of the total statement of

eyewitnesss, wherein, they have stated that they are along with

the injured and also they have sustained the injuries. Hence,

the contention that they came to know about the information in

the bottom of the statement will not pressed into the aid of the

learned counsel for the petitioner as contended. The Court has to

take note of in-toto statement of the injured witnesses while

considering the bail petition.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that this petitioner

is also a part of unlawful assembly and all of them inflicted

injuries with deadly weapons and as a result the victim has

sustained 18 injuries. There are eyewitnesses to the incident,

who are there along with the victim and they have also sustained

the injuries and also an attempt is made to take away the lives

of eyewitnesses. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the

petitioner.

7. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal

of the material available on record, taking into note of the

material collected by the Investigating Officer, the specific

allegations are made against this petitioner along with other

accused persons that when the victim tried to escape from the

clutches of the assailants, all of them have chased and accused

No.1 inflicted injury with a long and other accused persons, who

have chased also inflicted injury with deadly weapons. CWs.1 to

3 are the prosecution witnesses, who have sustained the injuries

and also they are the eyewitnesses to the incident. When such

being the material on record, when there is direct evidence

against this petitioner that they have chased along with other

accused persons and the victim also sustained multiple injuries

i.e., 18 injuries and the same is a barbaric act and committed

the murder. When the other injured eyewitnesses also made the

statement before the police, it is not a fit case to exercise the

discretion in favour of the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

8. The other contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that the petitioner is in custody from the last 7

months and the investigation has been completed is not a

ground when a barbaric act has been done i.e., chased him and

committed the murder. Hence, it is not a case for granting bail

by exercising the discretion.

9. The other contention is that the petitioner underwent

heart ailment is also not a ground when a serious offence of

murder is alleged against the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any

merit in the petition to enlarge him on bail.

10. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of Kumer Singh v. State of

Rajasthan and another reported in 2021 Crl.L.J. 4244,

categorically held that while considering the bail application, 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. It is further observed that 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 taken note of 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.

11. In the case on hand, the victim has sustained 18

injuries and the other eyewitnesses have also sustained injuries.

When such being the factual aspects, the individual role of the

accused is not required to be considered while considering the

bail petition as held in the Apex Court in Kumer Singh's case

(supra).

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

following:

ORDER

The bail petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*