Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nagaraju @ Naga vs State Of Karnataka on 11 October, 2023
Bench: M G Uma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9625/2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. NAGARAJU @ NAGA
S/O LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE
MUDIGERE GATE
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: RAJANNA .C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADDUR POLICE STATION
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
S.C.NO.121/2021 (CR.NO.140/2021) OF MADDUR P.S., MANDYA
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143,
147, 148, 109, 120B, 302, 307 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC
AND SECTION 25 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA CITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.10.2023 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner - accused No.4 is before this Court
seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime
No.140 of 2021 of Maddur Police Station, pending in SC
No.121 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Mandya City, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 120-B, 302,
307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the
IPC') and under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (for
short 'the Arms Act'), on the basis of the first information
lodged by G D Srikanta.
2. Heard Sri C Rajanna, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Channappa Erappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the
materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4. He is innocent and
law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offences as
alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without
any basis. He was apprehended on 17.05.2021 and since
then he is in judicial custody. The petitioner had filed similar
petition seeking to enlarge him on bail in Criminal Petition
No.12112 of 2022 and the same came to be dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 16.01.2023. Now the trial has
already begun. CW3 who is cited as injured eye witness has
not supported the case of the prosecution. CW2 who is also
said to be eye witness is the uncle of the deceased and he has
not referred the name of the petitioner as assailant. Even
CW1 who is examined as PW1 has not referred the name of
the petitioner. Under such circumstances, there is absolutely
no materials to connect the petitioner to the offences in
question. Hence, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Detention of the petitioner would amount to pre-trial
punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the
address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is
ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would
be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the
petition.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader submits that he is not having the file with him and he
has no instructions in the matter.
5. In view of the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled
for grant of bail under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
6. The materials that are placed before the Court
disclose that serious allegations are made against accused
Nos.1 to 6 in general and against the present petitioner in
particular for having committed the offences. As per the
charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, this petitioner
had stabbed the deceased with a dagger. As many as 55
witnesses are cited by the prosecution to prove the guilt of
the accused. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that CWs.1 and 2 - the informant and the eye
witness are examined as PWs 1 and 2. But they have not
referred to the name of the petitioner, the copy of their
depositions disclose that only their chief examination is
recorded by the Trial Court. Both the witnesses have referred
to all the accused about their overt acts. It is pertinent to
note that none of these witnesses were cross examined by the
learned counsel for the accused.
7. CW3 one of the eye witness is examined as PW3
and has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. It is
pertinent to note that PW3 is an injured eye witness and his
evidence is to be weighed by the Trial Court after conclusion
of the trial. Moreover, there are several other witnesses to be
examined by the prosecution.
8. The earlier criminal petition filed by the petitioner
seeking similar relief came to be withdrawn after addressing
the arguments for sometime. Now the trial has already begun
and therefore, I do not find any reason to enlarge the
petitioner on bail, when specific allegations are made against
him that he is one of the assailants who stabbed the deceased
with the dagger on his stomach. The postmortem report is
also not produced before the Court. The entire charge sheet
documents are not produced before this Court. Under such
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not
entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, I answer the above
point in Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Registrar (Judicial) is directed to forward a copy of this
order to the learned State Public Prosecutor to draw his
attention about the poor assistance from the learned High
Court Government Pleader and to make proper representation
on behalf of the State in future.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*bgn/-
