Sri Ranganath @ Lola @ Rangarajau vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11971 Kant

                           1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7163 OF 2022


BETWEEN:
 SRI. RANGANATH @ LOLA
@ RANGARAJAU
SON OF RANGA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.123,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE
SHIVAPURA, NELAGARDHANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 058.
                                       ...   PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.M.GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M, ADVOCATE) (PH)


AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PEENYA POLICE STATION
THROUGH SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
PIN CODE-560 001.
                                    ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. S.VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP) (PH)

                         ***

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN S.C.NO.381/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXVI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
                              2

(CCH-67)     FOR     THE     OFFENCE    P/U/S 114,
143,144,147,148,302,201,120(B) R/W 149 OF IPC AND
SECTION 25(1)(B)(b) AND 27 OF ARMS ACT.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;

                          ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C by

accused No.12, to enlarge him on bail in a case

registered in Crime No.341/2021 of Peenya Police

Station.

2. Charge Sheet has been filed against accused

Nos.1 to 14 for offences punishable under Sections 114,

143,144,147,148,302,201,120(B) R/W Section 149 OF IPC

and Section 25(1)(B)(b) and Section 27 OF ARMS ACT.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned HCGP for the State and perused the material on

record.

4. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on

24.10.2021 at about 7 p.m, on account of previous enmity, all

the accused formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly

weapons with a common object of committing murder of one

Sri Anand @ Shivapura Ananda @ J.C Ananda and traveled in

a Innova Car bearing Registration No.KA-02 AD-2223, a

Mahindra XUV Car bearing Reg.No.KA-51 MN-5291 and a

Honda Deo Scooter bearing Reg. No.KA-04 JS-8829 and went

to Shivapura, 11th A Cross, Nelagadaranahalli, at about 8.20

p.m and surrounded the deceased and assaulted him

indiscriminately all over his body with the weapons they were

carrying and committed his murder.

5. The complaint is lodged by one Smt. Radha, the

elder sister of the deceased, on the basis of which the

aforesaid crime was registered against eight named accused

and others.

6. In the course of investigation, the statements of eye

witnesses namely CW-4 to 10 were recorded and on

completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against 14

accused, arraigning the petitioner as accused No.12.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that

even according to the prosecution, the petitioner has not

participated in the actual assault but the allegations against

him is that he came to the spot on a two wheeler along with

accused No.14 and he was sitting on the said two wheeler. He

contends that the deceased is a rowdy sheeter having number

of enemies and the petitioner has been implicated only on the

ground that he is a member of the opposite gang. He would

further contend that the Trial Court has rejected the bail

petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner has been

involved in three other cases. However, petitioner has been

acquitted in two of those cases and in the other case, the

petitioner is not shown as an accused either in the FIR or in

the Charge Sheet. He submits that the petitioner has

voluntarily surrendered before the Court on 17.01.2022 and

since then he is languishing in judicial custody. He submits

that the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been

filed and petitioner is not required for any further

interrogation/investigation and therefore, seeks to enlarge

him on bail by imposing any conditions.

8. Learned HCGP on the other hand vehemently

opposed grant of bail to the petitioner contending that the

eye witnesses have clearly spoken about the presence of the

petitioner at the spot. He contends that the petitioner is one

of the member of the unlawful assembly who had a common

object of committing the murder of the deceased. He submits

that the deceased has sustained as many as 25 injuries and

in view of the nature and gravity of the offence, petitioner is

not entitled for bail. He further submits that a co-ordinate

bench of this Court has already rejected the prayer of

Accused Nos.10 and 11 in Criminal Petition No.4110/2022. He

submits that the petitioner is involved in other cases and

therefore he is not entitled for the relief sought in this

petition. Accordingly, he has sought to dismiss the petition.

9. As per charge sheet material, the accused persons

came in three vehicles namely one Innova Car bearing Reg.

No.KA-02 AD-2223, one Mahindra XUV Car bearing Reg.

No.KA-51 MN-5291 and a Honda Deo Scooter bearing Reg.

No.KA-04 JS-8829. The specific allegation against the

petitioner is that he was riding the two wheeler with accused

No.14 as pillion. It is alleged that the accused got down from

their respective vehicles and surrounded the deceased and

assaulted him indiscriminately all over his body and

committed his murder. CW-4 to 10 are the eye witnesses.

They have stated that the petitioner was riding the two

wheeler and accused No.14 was the pillion rider who was

standing at a distance and guarding the place, when the

deceased was being assaulted. Though the witnesses have

stated that all the accused got down from the vehicles and

surrounded the deceased, but at the same time, they have

stated that the petitioner herein was sitting on the two

wheeler at a distance at another end of the road.

10. It is no doubt true that from the material on record

it can be gathered that the petitioner has accompanied other

accused persons and came to the spot but the fact remains

that the petitioner was not armed with any weapon and he

has not assaulted the deceased.

11. The learned HCGP contends that the bail petition of

accused No.10 and accused No.11 has been rejected by this

Court and even against them there are no specific allegation

of assaulting the deceased. Hence, he contends that the

petitioner is not entitled for bail. In so far as accused No. 10

and accused No. 11 are concerned, this Court has specifically

observed that they have instigated other accused persons not

to leave the deceased and they are the master mind to the

alleged incident. Further, it is also observed that the said

accused have purchased the weapons.

12. Another aspect is that one of the eye witness

namely CW-4 has informed the incident to the first informant.

On the basis of which, the case was registered. The name of

the petitioner does not finds a place in the first information

report. A reading of the complaint averments would show that

the deceased is a rowdy sheeter and he had several enemies.

Be that as it may, specific allegation of assaulting the

deceased with deadly weapons is attributed against accused

Nos.1 to 7 and 9. Against accused Nos.10 and 11, it is alleged

that they are the master mind and they have instigated other

accused persons to commit the murder and also purchased

the weapons.

13. In respect of other cases registered against the

petitioner, the learned counsel has made available the copies

of the judgment passed in S.C No.602/2020 dated

06.09.2022 and in S.C No.1/2017 dated 06.09.2017 wherein,

after a full fledged trial, the Sessions Court has acquitted the

accused persons therein including the petitioner herein. In so

far as crime No.175/2014 of peenya Police Station registered

under Sections 504, 353 r/w 34 of IPC is concerned, the

petitioner is not shown as accused in the FIR or in Charge

Sheet.

14. The petitioner has voluntarily surrendered before

the Court on 17.01.2022. He has been interrogated. Now the

investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

petitioner who is already interrogated and undertaken to

furnish sufficient surety and to abide by conditions, can be

enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions.

Hence the following:-

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

Petitioner/accused No.12 in crime No.341/2021 of

Peenya Police Station now pending on the file of 66th Addl.

City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in S.C

No.381/2022 shall be enlarged on bail subject to following

conditions.

a. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge.

b. The petitioner shall furnish his address proof and shall inform the Court/I.O if there is any change in the address.

c. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the learned Sessions Judge.

d. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

e. Petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities.

f. He shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police station on the 1st of every month between 10 a.m and 1 p.m, till conclusion of trial or until further orders.

g. Petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

If any of the above conditions are violated, the

prosecution/the First informant are at liberty to seek

cancellation of the Bail.

The observations made in this order is confined to the

disposal of this petition.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VS