Sri Vijaya @ Vijay C vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7439 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                         BEFORE

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

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1940/2022

BETWEEN:

SRI VIJAYA @ VIJAY C
S/O SRI C. CHANNIGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT NO.2302, NEAR GAS OFFICE
VIVEKANANDA NAGARA
RAMANAGARA TOWN
RAMANAGARA-562 159.                       ... PETITIONER

            (BY SRI R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY IJOOR POLICE STATION
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
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.82/2021 OF IJOOR P.S., RAMANAGARA FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/Ss.302, 326, 307 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, RAMANAGARA IN C.C.NO.8/2022.
                                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.2 in Crime No.82/2021

of Ijoor Police Station, Ramanagara, for the offences punishable

under Sections 302, 323, 307 read with Section 34 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 one Prakash of Mysuru has entrusted work of recovery of

money from one Pradeep of Vivekananda Nagara, Ramanagara

to the deceased. Hence, that on 27.11.2021, the said Prakash

has taken deceased - Harish with him from the house of the

deceased and they came back after an hour and stated that they

could not find Pradeep. It is further alleged that Prakash again

entrusted the work of recovery of money from Pradeep to the

deceased by stating that he has talked to father and brother of

Pradeep regarding money and Prakash went back. On the same

day at about 7:00 p.m, when the informant was in his shop,

somebody came and told him that his son - the deceased is

assaulted by some one and the deceased is admitted to

Ramakrishna Hospital. Immediately, he went and found that the

injured was lying on the bed and that on enquiry told that Harish

was brought to the hospital and he died. When the informant

enquired the friend of deceased by name Lokesh, who was there,

he has narrated the incident how it was taken place and

altercation was taken place between Pradeep and Harish and this

petitioner pushed him and thereafter when accused No.1 went

and brought the knife, inflicted injury when this petitioner

facilitated along with his father to accused No.1 to inflict the

injury and statement of injured was also recorded. The police

have registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the

charge sheet.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that the allegation against accused Nos.2 and 3 is

similar and the Trial Court granted bail in favour of accused

No.3, but rejected the bail petition of this petitioner. The learned

counsel would submit that there is no overt act allegation

against this petitioner and only he was present at the time of

incident as alleged in the complaint and also the material

collected by the Investigating Officer. The Trial Court ought to

have granted bail, extend the benefit of parity and instead of

granted bail in favour of accused No.3 and not granted bail in

favour of accused No.2. The learned counsel also would submit

that the mahazar clearly discloses that no blood stained clothes

of this petitioner was seized since the clothes are not stained

with blood and the same discloses that no overt act allegation

against this petitioner. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the Police

have registered a case and investigated the matter and the

presence of this petitioner is not disputed and the statement of

the injured witness is very clear that when the scuffle was taking

place between the victim and accused No.1, this petitioner

pushed him and thereafter when accused No.1 brought the knife,

went inside, at that time, this petitioner held him and facilitated

accused No.1 to inflict the injuries.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for the State also would submit that the opinion for cause of

death is due to shock and hemorrhage in view of the injuries

sustained by the victim as per the post-mortem report. The

question of sharing the common intention also to be taken note

of and the presence is not disputed and the injured also made

the specific statement and the Wound Certificate produced along

with the petition discloses that the injured also sustained the

injuries and the Court has to see the injured statement, who is

an eyewitness to the incident. Hence, it is not a fit case to

exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner herein.

7. Having considered the submissions of the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and also on

perusal of the material available on record, no doubt, the

learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this

Court the seizure mahazar, wherein, it is stated that the clothes

of this petitioner is not stained with blood, but allegation against

accused No.1 is that he inflicted injury with knife and also it is

the statement of injured eyewitness, who had suffered the injury

measuring 8 to 2 cms as per the Wound Certificate. He

categorically speaks with regard to the presence of this

petitioner and also pushing the victim. It is the specific

allegation that this petitioner held the victim along with accused

No.3 and facilitated him in inflicting the injury.

8. 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,

wherein, the Apex Court while dealing with the bail matter with

regard to sharing of common intention and common object

particularly in paragraph No.14 of the judgment 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 stage, 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. Merely because

they were armed with lathis cannot be a ground to release them

on bail, in the facts and circumstances of the case, more

particularly when they are charged for the offences punishable

under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC as well

as Sections 147 and 148 of IPC, the benefit of overt act cannot

be extended.

9. Having considered the principles laid down in Kumer

Singh's case (supra), it is clear that while considering the bail

petition, 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 and the individual role of the

accused is not required to be considered when they have shared

the common intention.

10. In the case on hand, the specific allegation made

against this petitioner is that he pushed the victim and thereafter

held the victim and the overt act allegation is pushed him, held

him and facilitated accused No.1 to inflict injury with a knife.

When such being the case, in view of the principles laid down in

Kumer Singh's case (supra), it is not a fit case to exercise the

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

herein and it is a matter for trial.

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

following:

ORDER

The bail petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*