Karnataka High Court
Venukumar R @ Venu vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 May, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
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.4430/2022
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4433/2022
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4430/2022:
BETWEEN:
VENUKUMAR R @ VENU,
S/O RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT HONNAKALASAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TQ,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST 562106. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KODIHALLI POLICE KANAKAPURA,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.108/2021 OF KODIHALLI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA,
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148,
120(B), 114, 302 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, PENDING
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C.,
KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4433/2022:
BETWEEN:
KARTHIK,
S/O SURESH,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT,
ANEKAL TOWN,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST 562106. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KODIHALLI POLICE KANAKAPURA,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560001. ...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.108/2021 OF KODIHALLI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA,
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148,
120(B), 114, 302 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, PENDING
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C.,
KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
seeking regular bail of the petitioners in Crime No.108/2021 of
Kodihalli Police Station, Ramanagara, for the offence punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 114, 302 read with
Section 149 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that due to the property dispute and earlier murder, there was a
ill-will between the petitioners and the deceased and these two
petitioners along with other accused persons committed the
murder of the deceased, who is the step-mother's son of
accused No.1. The police have registered the case, investigated
the matter and filed the charge-sheet.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
though omnibus allegation is made in the charge-sheet that all
the assailants have inflicted injury, no specific overt-act is
alleged against these two petitioners, who are accused Nos.4
and 5. The learned counsel submits that investigation has
already been completed and there is no need of custodial trial
and whether these petitioners have shared common object in
eliminating the victim has to be tested in trial and hence they
may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that due to
the property dispute, the petitioners along with other accused
persons committed the murder of the deceased. The deceased
is the step-mother's son of accused No.1 and specific overt-act
allegation is made against these two petitioners that they
assaulted with long on his head and all over the body. The
learned counsel submits that there were 30 injuries on the dead
body and C.W.2 to C.W.5 are the eye witnesses to the incident
and their statement is also recorded and there is a direct
evidence against the petitioners.
6. In reply to the arguments of the learned High Court
Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the statements of C.W.2 to C.W.5 are recorded
after two days of the incident and hence the same cannot be
believed.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent-State and on perusal of the material available on
record, the incident was taken place in the bar and the CCTV
footage discloses the committing of the murder in Kittu Bar and
Restaurant and specific allegations are made against these two
petitioners that they inflicted injury with long. The post mortem
report also discloses 30 injures and cause of death is on account
of multiple injuries. Apart from that, the CCTV footage discloses
the scene of occurrence of committing the murder. When such
material is available and when C.W.2 to C.W.5, who are the eye-
witnesses have given the statement regarding the involvement
of the petitioners in inflicting the injury, it is not a fit case to
exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners. It is a
barbaric act and merciless attack was made with deadly
weapons. Mere filing of the charge-sheet is not a ground to
grant bail in a case of heinous offence. The learned counsel for
the petitioners submits that no specific overt-act allegation is
made against these two petitioners. The Apex Court in the
judgment in the case of KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 CRL.L.J. 4244
has categorically held that the Court at the time of considering
the bail petition when they have shared the common intention or
common object, 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 and the offences invoked are under
Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and hence it is not a fit case to
exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petitions are rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
