V. Satish Kumar, Son of VenkateshappA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/925475
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnApr-19-2012
Case NumberCRIMINAL PETHIQN No. 1606 of 2012
JudgeK.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 302, 34
AppellantV. Satish Kumar, Son of VenkateshappA.
RespondentThe State of KarnatakA.
Advocates:Shri. N. Udaya Kumar, Adv.
Excerpt:
[k.n.keshavanarayana, j.] indian penal code - section 302, 34 - punishment for murder -- this criminal petition is filed under section 439 of the code of criminal procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this hon'ble court may be pleased to release the petitioner on bail in crime no. 14/12 of mahadevapura police station. bangalore for the offence p/u/s 302 r/w 34 of ipc.1. the. petitioner who has been arraigned as accused no.2 in crime no. 14/2012 of mahadevapura police station, bangalore, registered for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the indian penal code, has sought for an order to enlarge him on bail.2. the case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased maniunatha, the complainant - ravindra naik, accused no.1 - arun kumar were employees in sky lark company and all of them were engaged in construction work. during night of 11.01.2012 at about 10:00 p.m. while all of them were working., accused no.1 picked up quarrel with deceased manjunatha. thereafter, accused no.1 secured the presence of his bother accused no .2, who came there on his motor cycle and handed over a dragger to accused no. 1 and thereafter, accused no.1 stabbed manjunatha on his stomach at about 10:45 p.m., and thereby caused mm severe injuries to which manjunatha succumbed and thereafter, both accused persons went away from the place on the motor cycle on which accused no.2 had reached the scene of occurrence. during investigation, petitioner was apprehended arid subjected to judicial custody. his application for bail came to be rejected by the learned sessions judge. therefore, the petitioner is before this court,3. the petition opposed by the respondent - state.4. i have heard both sides. perused the records made available.5. as could be seen from the allegations made in the complaint lodged at the earliest point of time by ravindra naik, who was stated to be an eyewitness to the incident, the only overt act attributed against this petitioner - accused no.2 is that he reached the scene of occurrence on a motor cycle at about 10:40 p.m. and handed over the knife to accused no.1 by which accused no.1 stabbed the deceased and thereafter, this petitioner took accused no.1 in his motorcycle away from the place thus, in the complaint lodged at the earliest point of time, there is no allegation that this petitioner inflicted any injury to the deceased. therefore, at tills stage, mere are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was in any wav responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased. the petitioner is stated to be a student studying in 25 year.8 .com in visveswarapura degree, college of arts and commerce, bangalore. from the records, it is noticed that the investigating officer after completing the investigation has sled the charge sheet. thus, the investigation is already over. therefore, there is no chance of the petitioner interfering with the investigation. the apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may see away from the justice could be allayed by imposing strict conditions.6. in view of the above-, the petition is allowed the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the case in crime no. 14/2012 of mahadevapura police station. bangalore, his executing a personal bond for a sum of rs,50,000/-with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional magistrate/sessions judge and subject to further conditions that,i) the petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner;ii) the petitioner for the purpose of investigation shall appear before the hives hurler officer whenever called upon to do so and co-operate in the investigation of the case;iii) the petitioner shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case;iv) the petitioner shall appear on all hearing dates before the trial court without fail;v) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of court of sessions without express permission thereof.vi) the petitioner shall mark his attendance in the respondent - police station on even7 second sunday of the month between 1o00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. till the disposal of me case.
Judgment:

1. The. petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No.2 in Crime No. 14/2012 of Mahadevapura Police Station, Bangalore, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for an order to enlarge him on bail.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Maniunatha, the complainant - Ravindra Naik, accused No.1 - Arun Kumar were employees in Sky Lark Company and all of them were engaged in construction work. During night of 11.01.2012 at about 10:00 p.m. while all of them were working., accused No.1 picked up quarrel with deceased Manjunatha. Thereafter, accused No.1 secured the presence of his bother accused No .2, who came there on his motor cycle and handed over a dragger to accused No. 1 and thereafter, accused No.1 STABBED Manjunatha on his stomach at about 10:45 p.m., and thereby caused mm severe injuries to which Manjunatha succumbed and thereafter, both accused persons went away from the place on the motor cycle on which accused No.2 had reached the scene of occurrence. During investigation, petitioner was apprehended arid subjected to judicial custody. His application for bail came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court,

3. The petition opposed by the respondent - State.

4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.

5. As could be seen from the allegations made in the complaint lodged at the earliest point of time by Ravindra Naik, who was stated to be an eyewitness to the incident, the only overt act attributed against this petitioner - accused No.2 is that he reached the scene of occurrence on a motor cycle at about 10:40 p.m. and handed over the knife to accused No.1 by which accused No.1 stabbed the deceased and Thereafter, this petitioner took accused No.1 in his motorcycle away from the place Thus, in the complaint lodged at the earliest point of time, there is no allegation that this petitioner inflicted any injury to the deceased. Therefore, at tills stage, mere are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was in any wav responsible for the homicidal death of the deceased. The petitioner is stated to be a student studying in 25 year.

8 .Com in Visveswarapura Degree, College of Arts and Commerce, Bangalore. From the records, it is noticed that the Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has Sled the charge sheet. Thus, the investigation is already over. Therefore, there is no chance of the petitioner interfering with the investigation. The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may See away from the justice could be allayed by imposing strict conditions.

6. In view of the above-, the petition is allowed The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the case in Crime No. 14/2012 of Mahadevapura Police Station. Bangalore, his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs,50,000/-with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Magistrate/Sessions Judge and subject to further conditions that,

i) The petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

ii) The petitioner for the purpose of investigation shall appear before the hives hurler Officer whenever called upon to do so and co-operate in the investigation of the case;

iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case;

iv) The petitioner shall appear on all hearing dates before the Trial Court without fail;

v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Court of Sessions without express permission thereof.

vi) The petitioner shall mark his attendance in the respondent - Police Station on even7 second Sunday of the month between 1O00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. till the disposal of me case.