Shashi Kumar vs State of Karnataka

Since these two petitions are in respect of the same crime number and since common questions of law and facts are involved in these two

petitions, they are taken up together to dispose of by this common order in order to avoid repetition of factual and legal aspects.

The petition in Crl.P.No.394/2018 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 and another petition in Crl.P.No.9720/2017 is fled by the

petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking their release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) read

with 34 of IPC registered in Respondent- police station in Crime No.290/2017. After the investigation, charge sheet is also filed for the same

offences.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, so also, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 has made submission that though the complainant is the own brother of the deceased-

Prakash claims that he is an eye witness to the incident. Looking to the complaint and as well as further statements, it go to shows that he is not

really an eye witness and he has been planted by the prosecution that he is an eye witness. So far as other alleged eye witness i.e. CW2 is

concerned, learned counsel made submission that his statement is recorded after 18 days i.e., 15.09.2017 which is 4 days after arrest of the

accused No.1. He has also made submission that so far as accused No.2 is concerned, the complaint averment itself goes to show that he has not

assaulted the deceased-Prakash, but only allegation is that he held the deceased-Prakash and thereby facilitated the other accused persons to

assault him. Learned counsel further made submission that on perusing the entire charge sheet materials, no prima-facie case is made out against

both the accused persons. Even so far as accused No.1-V.Manjunath is concerned, weapon is not seized at his instance and only one Car is said

to have been seized, but it is seized from the Stay home belonged to one Ganesh. But, the said Ganesh is not cited as witness in the charge sheet

by the prosecution. Hence, he submitted that in view of these materials, now the investigation has been completed and charge sheet is also filed and

hence, by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioners may be admitted to regular bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail petition and contended that there is prima-facie case against both the

accused persons. Learned HCGP referring to the statement of CW2 so also complaint averments made the submission that even a case is made

against the accused No.2- Shashi Kumar is concerned, it is stated that he held the deceased-Prakasha and thereby facilitated the other accused

persons to murder the deceased. He has also made submission that even opinion of the Doctor in the P.M.Report is consistent to the case of the

prosecution. Hence, he submitted that petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in these bail petitions, FIR, complaint, charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

The complainant is the own brother of the deceased-Prakash has stated in the complaint that he personally witnessed the incident and made

allegations that accused No.1-V.Manjunath assaulted the deceased with knife and caused bleeding injuries. In respect of other accused, it is stated

that they also took wick axe from the hands of the deceased himself and assaulted him. But, so far as accused No.2-Shashi Kumar is concerned

the allegation in the complaint as well as in the further statement of the CW2, he held the deceased. Looking to these materials and opinion of the

Doctor regarding the cause of death is due to multiple injuries sustained, totally, there are 4 injuries noticed by the Doctor on the body of the

deceased viz., (i) abrasion injuries, (ii) two chopped wounds, (iii) two incised wounds and (iv) chopped wound. Looking to these materials, I am

of the opinion that as far as the accused No.1 is concerned there is prima-facie case is made out by the prosecution about his involvement in

committing the said offence. Therefore, the petition in Crl.P.No.394/2018 filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 is hereby rejected.

The petitioner/accused No.2 in another petition in Crl.P.No.9720/2017 is concerned by imposing reasonable conditions he can be granted with

bail since, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet is also filed. Accordingly, petition in Crl.P.No.9720/2017 filed by the

petitioner/accused No.2 is hereby allowed. Petitioner/ accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under sections

302, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC, registered in respondent-police station in Cr.No.290/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner/accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the

concerned Court.

ii. Petitioner/accused No.2 shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner/accused No.2 shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.