Abhishek vs State Of Karnataka

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J

This petition is filed by accused No. 2 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in S.C. No. 1693/2023 (Crime No. 170/2023 of J.P. Nagar Police Station) pending on the file of LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru registered for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent - State.

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that C.W.2 is the only eyewitness to the incident, she is the wife of the deceased and she has been examined as P.W.2. Totally 7 witnesses out of 27 are examined. Father of the petitioner died in the jail and he was accused No. 1 in this case. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. With this he prayed to allow the petition.

Per contra learned HCGP would contend that P.W.2 is the eye witness to the incident and she has supported the case of the prosecution. The incident has taken place in the house of the deceased, wherein the accused persons entered the house, quarreled with the deceased and stabbed him. Chargesheet material show prima facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. Trial is going on and the prosecution has to examine remaining witnesses. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will flee from justice and cause hindrance in disposal of the case. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the chargesheet and other materials placed on record.

As per chargesheet, case of the prosecution is that the deceased had let out the house belonging to his wife to C.W.3. The accused persons were running a chicken center in the house. C.W.3, who was a Brahmin, was not tolerating the smell of the said chicken center and he informed the deceased that he will vacate the house. Therefore the deceased told accused No. 1 to change his business or otherwise he will file complaint. Enraged by that, accused persons on 17.07.2023 entered the house of the deceased and when they were talking with the deceased, suddenly, the accused persons assaulted the deceased with dagger, left dagger and knife on the spot and ran away. Incident has been witnessed by C.W.2, who is the wife of the deceased. C.W.2 has already been examined as P.W.2 and she has supported the case of the prosecution. The postmortem report indicate that the deceased had sustained 10 injuries and Doctor has opined that cause of his death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained. Accused No. 1 was the father of this petitioner and he died during pendency of the case in the jail. Petitioner is stated to be not married. It is submitted that petitioner has to perform last rites on the death of his father. Said aspect cannot be considered to be a ground for grant of bail as the offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offence punishable with either death or imprisonment for life.

Considering the above aspects, petitioner has not made out any grounds for grant of bail.

In the result petition is dismissed.