Ramesh @ Tamil Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J

This petition is filed by petitioner - accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. - 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in SC No. 175/2023 (Crime No. 46/2023 of Nyamathi Police Station, Davanagere) pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 324, 307, 120B, 201, 211 read with 149 of IPC.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional SPP for respondent - State.

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the eye witness - C.W.45 has not stated any overt act of this petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Even the said C.W.45 has not named the petitioner in his statement recorded by the Police. Another eyewitness C.W.46 in his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has stated that a person sitting in the front seat of the car assaulted the deceased. Petitioner in his voluntary statement has stated that the door was struck and he could not open the door. There are totally 131 charge sheet witnesses. Charge is not yet framed. Accused No. 8 has filed a criminal petition before this Court wherein there is stay of further proceedings. Learned counsel for petitioner is placing reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basavaraj Vs. State of Karnataka, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5407/2024 dated 15.07.2024, wherein it is held as under Para 2.

"2. It is true that the petitioner appears to be the main accused who the fatal injury is attributed. However, we are informed that the trial proceedings have been stayed by the High Court as the petitioner's brother, who is his co-accused, has filed a petition seeking his discharge. On account of the stay, it seems that the trial is not likely to be concluded very early. The prosecution evidence is yet to commence and there are 44 witnesses to be examined."

On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.

Per contra, learned Additional SPP would contend that petitioner is having criminal antecedents and he is involved in 6 cases, out of them, 4 cases are in Shivamogga. There is motive for this petitioner to assault the deceased and the injured. The incident has taken place as there is a vengeance by the petitioner and other accused towards the deceased and the injured as they had committed the murder of one Handi Annappa @ Handi Anni, who was the follower of accused No. 13. Petitioner is also the follower of accused No. 13. C.W.45 is the injured and C.W.46 to C.W.51 are eyewitnesses to the incident. As petitioner is having criminal antecedents if he is granted bail there is threat to C.W.45 - injured and other eyewitnesses to the incident. Charge sheet material shows prima facie case against petitioner. The offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offence punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

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

The deceased Anjaneya and injured Madhu (C.W.45) were accused Nos. 7 and 8 in Crime No. 154/2023 in the case of murder of one Handi Annappa @ Handi Anni. Said Handi Annappa @ Handi Anni was a follower of accused No. 13 and in order to take revenge against them he had informed the same to petitioner - accused No. 1 who is also his follower. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 conspired to kill the deceased. Other accused informed the movements of the deceased and the injured to accused Nos. 1 to 6. When injured and the deceased were moving on their bike, accused No. 16 took his car on left side and made them not to proceed further on the bike. At that time, a Scorpio vehicle came from backside of the said bike and dashed to it. As a result deceased Anjaneya and injured fell down on the land and Scorpio vehicle went in to the ditch. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 have assaulted deceased Anjaneya with long chopper on his face and head. Thereafter accused Nos. 1 and 6 also came there and assaulted with long chopper on the deceased Anjaneya. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 have assaulted C.W.45 - Madhu with long chopper on his hand, leg and caused injuries.

Statement of C.W.5 - injured indicates the presence of the petitioner on the spot, in the car, on the front seat, besides the driver. Voluntary statement of the petitioner indicates that he assaulted the deceased with a long chopper on his face and head. Charge sheet material show prima facie case against the petitioner for offences alleged against him. Petitioner is having criminal antecedents and involved in six cases, out of them four cases are in Shivamogga. If the petitioner is granted bail there is threat to C.W.45 and other eye witnesses to the incident.

In the case on which learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance, there is no allegation of the petitioner therein having criminal antecedents and therefore that decision does not apply to the case on hand.

If the proceedings are stayed only in respect of accused No. 8 by this Court, petitioner can insist the Court to split up case against accused No. 8 and proceed with other accused. Merely because trial is not commenced is not a ground for grant of bail since offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offence punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. Petitioner is also having criminal antecedents.

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

In the result, the petition is dismissed.