SHEKAR S vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under

Sections 307, 302 read with 149 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.790/2016. But after completion of investigation,

charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 120B, 150, 302 read with 149 of IPC.

Brief facts of the prosecution case that the Venkatamma is the wife of complainant. Marappa, the father Venkatamma, has site property

measuring 200 X 80 feet at Kasavanahalli, Bhovi colony, Bengaluru. Out of that, 100 X 80 half site was given to Venkatamma and another half

site was given to her sister Parvathamma. The site belonged to Venkatamma was divided among her five children. Her second daughter

Kanthamma was married to Dasharath (accused No.8). Somehow accused No.8 got transferred khata of the entire property in his name.

Therefore, the deceased Sreenivasaiah, who is the son of Parvathamma, raised objection. Therefore, there was a panchayat, but accused No.8

has not agreed and regarding this site dispute incident has occurred. It is the further allegation that on 30.12.2016 after meeting advocate, the

complainant, his son Venkatesh Babu and Sreenivasaiah returning in Nano car towards their house at Bhovi Colony and when they were near

Amruth college, Manjunath/accused No.1, the relative of Dasharath, along with other accused came in a car, waylaid their car and attacked

deceased Sreenivasaiah, who was driving the car, and caused injuries to him by Manjunath with knife on the neck and other parts of the body and

when the complainant went to rescue Sreenivasaiah, he was also assaulted and the assailants went away causing injuries. The injured Sreenivasaiah

was taken in auto rickshaw to Sakra Hospital for treatment, but the Doctor declared that he was brought dead. On the basis of the said complaint,

case came to be registered for the alleged offences against nine persons, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 in the FIR.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that the complaint as well as the allegations in the statement

of alleged eye-witnesses are against accused No.1, who alleged to have assaulted the deceased with knife on the neck portion and caused the

death. He has also submitted that accused Nos.2 and 4 to 10 are already on bail and the allegations are similar as against accused Nos.2 and 4 to

He also submitted that insofar as Venkatesh/accused No.2 is concerned, this Court has already granted bail and the present petitioner is also on

the same footing with that of accused No.2, so also, accused Nos.4 to 6, who were already on bail. He has further submitted that even according

to the medical opinion, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy, gave the opinion that death is because of stab injury sustained to the neck. Hence, in

view of these materials there is no prima-facie case as against the petitioner. The other accused, against whom also similar allegations are made,

have been granted bail, hence, he submitted to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that in the complaint as well as in the

statement of alleged eye-witnesses there is an allegation that the petitioner also assaulted the deceased with knife on the head portion and other

parts of the body, therefore, there is an overt-act by the petitioner. There is a prima-facie case as against the petitioner and hence, he is not entitled

to be granted with bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. Insofar as the allegations in the

complaint are concerned, on page No.2 of said complaint, it is stated that at that time, Manjunath, Shekar, Girish, who were holding knife and

other deadly weapons, came and assaulted Sreenivasaiah on the neck portion, head and other parts of the body and when the complainant and his

wife went to the rescue, he was also assaulted and thereafter, the assailants ran away from the said place. In the complaint there is specific

allegation as against the petitioner herein that he also came holding the deadly weapon, assaulted the deceased Sreenivasaiah along with other

accused.

I have also perused the statement of C.W.2-Venkatamma, which was recorded on 31.12.2016, wherein at page No.2 of the said statement,

she has clearly stated that immediately Shekar, Anand, Prakash and Nagaraj, who is the relative of Shekar and Girish came to the said place

holding wickets and they surrounded their car and damaged the glasses of the car. Manjunath, who was holding knife and Venkatesh, who was

holding wicket, alighted from Car, Manjunath assaulted Sreenivasaiah with knife on his neck portion, at that time, in order to escape Sreenivasaiah

went nearby the driver''s seat in the car and at that time Shekar/petitioner herein, assaulted with knife on the head, left hand, the shoulders portion

and on stomach. It is also mentioned that when herself and her husband went to rescue Sreenivasaiah, petitioner herein told that he is going to finish

of them with knife and he assaulted her husband with knife and caused bleeding injury, and he also assaulted her with the said knife. In the

meanwhile, as public were coming to the said place, then they ran away from the said place.

Therefore, looking into the materials on record, I am of the opinion that there is prima-facie material placed by the prosecution about the

involvement of the petitioner on the assault made with knife on the deceased Sreenivasaiah. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in

favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.