Manjunatha @ Manju vs The State of Karnataka

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1 in SC No. 5066/13 on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore sitting at Anekal, registered for the offences under Sections 302, 307 r/w 34 IPC, is before this Court seeking for grant of regular bail. It is the case of the prosecution CW1 and deceased are brothers and are painters by occupation. On 21.05.2013, CW1 and deceased after completing their work were returning to their place Anekal. On the way, when they were in front of Sunil Bar situated at Karpur Village, since the deceased expressed that he wanted to have a bottle of beer, both of them stopped at the said place and thereafter deceased alone went inside Sunil Bar to have beer. CW1 stood in front of the Bar. After the deceased went inside the Bar and sat on a table to have beer, A1 also came to the said Bar and sat in front of the deceased. Thereafter, a wordy dual ensued between the two. This was at about 8.30 pm. Thereafter, A1 left the Bar telling the deceased that he would not be alive by next day. After A1 came out of the Bar, he went to his house, picked up a chopper and came near the bunk shop situated opposite to Sunil Bar in TVS Moped belonging to Accused No. 2, as a pillion rider. On arriving near the said bunk shop, seeing CW1 and deceased in front of the bunk shop, he took out the chopper and assaulted the deceased on his head and other parts of the body. On account of the same, the deceased sustained severe injuries. Seeing assault made on his brother, when CW1 intervened, A1 assaulted CW1 also with chopper and attempted to commit his murder. Seeing the deceased having fallen down with severe injuries, the accused sped away from the spot in the moped. Thereafter, the deceased was removed to Government Hospital at Anekal where on examination by the Medical Officer was directed to be removed to higher Hospital for better treatment. On the way to the higher Hospital, viz., Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, deceased expired. CW1 was treated for the injuries that he had sustained at Anekal Government Hospital. Therefore, the accused have committed the offence alleged against them.

Sri M.T. Nanaiah, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. In support of his submission, he submitted the complaint is filed by CW1, who is the brother of the deceased before the police on that very night at 22.45 p.m. i.e., on the night of 21.05.2013. That complaint has been recorded in the presence of a Medical Officer. The FIR that has been prepared on the basis of the said complaint has reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on 22.05.2013 at 12.10 noon He submits, the complainant on that very night has taken treatment in Anekal Government Hospital. The history that has been furnished before the Medical Officer is that he has been assaulted by unknown persons. Relying on this, he submits the version of the complainant that it is this petitioner who has assaulted the deceased and himself on the night of 21.05.2013 in front of the bunk shop would go a long way to believe the averments made in the First Information. Further, in view of the fact there is delay in the FIR reaching the Court, much time has been made use off to falsely implicate this petitioner. He, further submits there is no motive projected to connect this petitioner in the case to commit the offence. The petitioner/A1 is in custody since 25.06.2013 and he is no more required for the purposes of investigation. Further as A2 has been released on bail in the very case, this petitioner also be enlarged on bail.

Learned HCGP vehemently opposed the application filed by the petitioner.

The material on record reveals, this petitioner has committed the murder of the deceased by assaulting him with a long when he was standing in front of the bunk shop situated near Sunil Bar located near Karpur gate, coming within the jurisdiction of the respondent-police. The material on record also reveals prior to that a wordy duel ensued between the deceased and this petitioner at Sunil Bar at about 8.30 p.m. Thereafter, this petitioner left the Bar stating that he would not let him alive, went to his house and returned with a long. The allegations in the First Information reveal, immediately on coming near the bunk shop he has taken out the long and hackled the deceased to death. The submission of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that the has been falsely implicated in view of the delay in FIR reaching the Court and the complainant mentioning that he was assaulted by unknown persons on the very night before the Medical Officer while he was treated at Anekal Hospital. That indicates this petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case.

But, the material on record reveals the First Information is recorded at the hospital that too in the presence of the Medical Officer who has treated this petitioner at 10.45 p.m. In view of the same, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned Senior Counsel. Further, the allegations in the First Information clearly reveal that this petitioner has assaulted the deceased with long immediately on coming near the bunk shop and caused him fatal injuries to which he has succumbed. In view of the same since a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner for the offence u/s 302 of IPC and as his case does not stand on par with A2, he is not entitled to the relief as sought for by him. Accordingly there is no merit in the petition and it is dismissed.