Shivakumar and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

H. Billappa, J.—The petitioners who are accused Nos. 22, 13, 18 and 15 in Crime No. 244/2012 of Nelamangala Town Police Station have filed these petitions praying for grant of bail.

The petitioner in criminal petition No. 6916/2014 is accused No. 22, the petitioner in criminal petition No. 6922/2014 is accused No. 13, the petitioner in criminal petition No. 4200/2014 is accused No. 18 and the petitioner in criminal petition No. 7367/2014 is accused No. 15.

It is stated in the petitions that the petitioners are innocent for the offences alleged against them and that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners are ready to abide by all conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed for grant of bail.

A case in Crime No. 244/2012 of Nelamangala Town Police Station has been registered against A1 Bethangere Srinivasa @ Seena and 25 to 35 unknown accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections, 341, 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. After investigation charge sheet has been filed against 41 accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

It is alleged that the petitioners and the other accused have caused the death of one B.M.L. Krishnappa and injuries to few others and also damaged the vehicle. The petitioners are accused Nos. 22, 13, 18, and 15. The accused Nos. 22 and 13 have been arrested on 03-10-2012, the accused No. 18 has been arrested on 05-09-2012 and accused No. 15 has been arrested on 10-09-2012. They are in custody since then.

The learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal petition Nos. 6916/2014 and 6922/2014 contended that the petitioners are innocent for the offences alleged against them. The complaint is lodged only against A1. In the complaint, the name of the accused No. 22 or 13 is not mentioned. No overt act has been attributed to the petitioners. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have attacked the vehicle. CW. 12 has stated that accused No. 13 assaulted him with the long on his back. CW. 7 has stated that accused No. 22 and 13 assaulted one Murthy and Naveen and attacked the vehicle. CW. 6 Narasimha Murthy has stated that one Murthy and Naveen assaulted him with the longs. CW. 13 Naveen Kumar has not stated that he was assaulted by accused Nos. 22 and 13. The identification parade has not been conducted. All the accused were wearing monkey caps. Accused Nos. 10, 14 and 25 against whom similar allegations have been made are granted bail. Therefore, on the ground of parity also, the accused Nos. 22 and 13 can be granted bail.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal petition No. 7367/2014 i.e., accused No. 15 submitted that the allegation against accused No. 15 is that he caused damage to Innova vehicle with a long. Accused Nos. 15, 6, 18, 52 and 40 dragged CW. 1 and assaulted him with the hands. The wound certificate of C.W. 1 shows that there were no external injuries. CW. 1 has stated that accused No. 15 assaulted him with the hands. The allegation of conspiracy, recovery of weapons and attacking of the vehicles has been considered by this Court and accused Nos. 8, 10, 14, 23, 25, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 have been granted bail. This petitioner i.e., accused No. 15 is in custody since 2� years. Therefore, the petitioner can be granted with bail.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal petition No. 4200/2014 i.e., accused No. 18 submitted that the allegation against accused No. 18 is that he assaulted CW. 1 with the hands. CW. 1 has not stated in the complaint as to who assaulted him. In his further statement, CW. 1 has stated that he was assaulted with the hands by accused No. 18. The wound certificate shows that there were no external injuries. Accused Nos. 14, 10 and 25 against whom similar allegations have been made are granted bail. Therefore, accused No. 18 can be granted bail.

As against this, the learned Special PP submitted that overt act has been attributed to all the petitioners and therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted bail. CWs. 1, 24, 25 and 26 have stated regarding the overt act of accused Nos. 15 and 18. Accused Nos. 15 and 18 have dragged CW. 1 and assaulted him with the hands and legs. Further, he submitted that CWs. 12, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13 have stated that accused No. 13 and 22 attacked the vehicle and assaulted CW. 6 Narasimha Murthy and CW. 12 Naveen Kumar. The petitioners have withdrawn the criminal petitions filed by them earlier. The petitioners are participants in the alleged crime and over act has been attributed to them and therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted bail.

Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) Page 765, the learned Special PP submitted that the petitioners are involved in the alleged crime which is serious in nature and therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted bail.

Further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1033, the learned Special PP submitted that the petitioners have withdrawn the petitions filed by them and there is no change of circumstance and therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted bail.

Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107, the learned Special PP submitted that the accused were seen by the witnesses several times and therefore, test identification parade was not required.

Further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 499, the learned Special PP submitted that grave offences are challenge to the civil society and in such cases, the time spent in the custody is insignificant.

Further placing reliance on the decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in Salim Vs. State of U.P., (2003) CriLJ 1865 , the learned Special PP submitted that the ground of parity is not a compelling reason for grant of bail. In the present case, the petitioners are involved in the alleged crime which is heinous in nature and therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted with bail.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

It is relevant to note, it is alleged that the petitioners and the other accused have caused the death of one B.M.L. Krishnappa and injury to few others. The overt act that has been attributed to the petitioners in Criminal petition Nos. 6916/2014 and 6922/2014 i.e., accused Nos. 22 and 13 is that they attacked the vehicle and they assaulted CW. 12 Naveen Kumar and one Murthy. CWs. 12, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13 have stated regarding the overt act of A22 and A13. The wound certificates of CW. 12 Naveen Kumar and CW. 13 Narasimha Murthy have been produced. CW. 12 Naveen Kumar has sustained one injury on the left shoulder measuring 2x3 c.m. It is simple in nature. CW. 13 Narasimha Murthy has sustained one injury over right parietal region measuring 8x2 c.m. It is also simple in nature. This Court in Criminal petition Nos. 5848/2013, 4604/2014, 5913/2014, 6902/2014 and 6043/2014 while considering the bail applications of accused Nos. 29, 8, 14, 25, 30 and 37 has considered damage caused to the vehicle and recovery of the weapon and has granted bail to accused Nos. 8, 14, 25, 29, 30 and 37. In the present case, the overt act that has been attributed to accused Nos. 22 and 13 is that they have caused damage to the vehicle and assaulted CW. 12 Naveen Kumar and one Murthy. The wound certificates show that the injured have sustained simple injuries. Therefore, in the circumstances, the accused Nos. 22 and 13 can be granted bail.

In so far as the petitioners in Criminal petition No. 4200/2014 and Criminal petition No. 7367/2014 i.e., accused Nos. 18 and 15 are concerned, the overt act that has been attributed to them is that they caused damage to the vehicle and assaulted CW. 1 with the hands and legs. CW. 1 in the complaint has not attributed any overt act to accused No. 18 and 15. His statement has been recorded on 27-07-2012. In that statement also he has not mentioned the names of accused Nos. 18 and 15. Subsequently, his statement has been recorded on 12-08-2012. Then also, he has not mentioned the names of accused Nos. 18 and 15. It is only on 10-09-2012, he has mentioned the names of A. 18 and A. 15 and has stated that accused Nos. 18 and 15 have caused damage to the vehicle and assaulted him with the hands and legs. The wound certificate of CW. 1 has been produced. It shows that he has not sustained any external injuries. In the circumstances, the petitioners in Criminal petition Nos. 4200/2014 and 7367/2014 i.e., accused Nos. 18 and 15 can be granted bail. This Court in Criminal petition Nos. 5848/2013, 4604/2014, 7277/2014, 5913/2014, 6902/2014 and 6043/2014 has granted bail considering the conspiracy, damage to the vehicle, recovery and other things. Therefore, the petitioners in these petitions can be granted bail having regard to the nature of allegations and the material on record against them.

Accordingly, the criminal petitions are allowed. The petitioners i.e., Accused Nos. 22, 13, 18 and 15 are granted bail in Crime No. 244/2012 of Nelamangala Town Police Station (S.C. No. 18/2014 on the file of the Fast Track Court No. 1, Bengaluru Rural District) subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the witnesses or evidence.

(iii) The petitioners shall not indulge in any or similar offences.

(iv) The petitioners shall attend the Court regularly without fail.

(v) The petitioners shall mark their attendance in Nelamangala Town Police Station twice in a week on every Wednesday and Sunday between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial.

(vi) If the petitioners have obtained passport, the same shall be surrendered to the trial Court without fail.

(vii) If petitioners violate any condition, the respondent-State can move for cancellation of the bail.