Shivkumar vs The State of Karnataka

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner, who is arrayed as A.4 in S.C. No. 1318/2012 on the file of FTC-1, Bangalore City, registered for the offences under Sections 120(B), 302, 201 r/w. 34 of IPC, is before this Court praying for releasing him on bail. It is the case of the prosecution, A.1 in the case was working as a clerk in a Co-operative society situated at Sahakara Nagar, Bangalore. During the years 2011-2012 he had misappropriated huge amount of the said society. In respect of the same, an enquiry had been conducted in pursuance of the order issued by the Registrar of the Co-operative Society. It is the case of the prosecution, the deceased Mahanthesh in the case is a KAS Officer, who was holding enquiry into the said misappropriation of the funds of the society. A.1 apprehending that he would be indicted in the enquiry and hauled up for the misappropriated amount hatched a conspiracy with other four accused including this petitioner to finish him off. Accordingly, it is the case of the prosecution, on 15.5.2012 at about 11.45 p.m. when the deceased was proceeding to his house in his vehicle on completion of his work and was in front of Atria hotel situated on Palace road, Bangalore, the accused including this petitioner way laid the deceased at the said place, assaulted him on his face and other parts of the body and caused him severe injuries and sped away from the said place in the vehicle in which they had come The injured thereafter was removed to Mallige Nursing Home for treatment where he succumbed to the injuries on 20.5.2012 while undergoing treatment. The present petitioner came to be arrested during the course of investigation on 6.6.2012. Hence he is before this Court praying for releasing him on bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, initially the complaint was filed by C.W. 1 against unknown persons and on the basis of the same, case was registered for the offence u/s 307 r/w. 34 of IPC. On the death of the deceased Sections 302, 201, 120(b) came to be added in the case. He further submits, the Police during the course of investigation recorded the statement of C.Ws. 37 and 38 on 10.6.2012 who claim that they had seen the accused on the night of the occurrence assaulting the deceased. Their statement reveals that they had seen the accused punching the deceased. It also reveals, they had watched on the TV about the assault made on the deceased on 1.6.2012. He submits, on the basis of the statement of these two witnesses the accused came to be apprehended and involved in the case. Since the petitioner and other accused have been involved on the basis of the said statements of these two witnesses, which has been recorded about a month after the occurrence, it goes a long way to place reliance on the same. He further submits, other circumstance pressed into service is; the recovery of a mobile phone and silver ring at the instance of this petitioner. Both belong to the petitioner himself. There is nothing to indicate that these two articles have anything to do in the commission of the offence. The petitioner is in custody since 6.6.2012. For want of Presiding Officer the trial has not proceeded till now. A.5 in this very case has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.P. No. 5587/2012. Therefore, under these circumstances, the petitioner also be released on bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the application filed by the petitioner contended, the material collected by the Investigating Agency and placed on record indicates the involvement of this petitioner in assaulting the deceased on the night of the occurrence. He further contends, the deceased is a KAS Officer. He was discharging his duties by holding an enquiry into the alleged misappropriation of the funds of the Co-operative Society situated at Sahakara Nagar where A.1 was working as Second Division Clerk. Since there was heavy embezzlement of the funds of the Co-operative Society, the deceased seriously was making enquiry into the same. A.1 on coming to know apprehending that he would be indicted in the case hatched conspiracy with other accused to finish off the deceased and in pursuance of the same he along with other accused have assaulted the deceased on the night of the occurrence while he was proceeding to his house in the vehicle after completion of the work, due to which he sustained injuries and succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment in the hospital. He also submits, an innocent dedicated officer of KAS rank has been done to death by the accused in the case and the material that has been collected would point towards the guilt of the accused. Since a prima facie case is made out against this petitioner, as the case of A.5 stands on a different footing, who has been granted bail the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. He further submits, insofar as the delay in the trial, it is for the administrative reasons and that would not enure to the benefit of this petitioner. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, since a prima facie case is made out against the accused, he is not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the petition be dismissed.

A perusal of the material now on record reveals, this accused is alleged to have given a punch on the face of the deceased. The autopsy report reveals, the deceased has sustained severe injuries on the face apart from other parts of his body. Though the counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends the statement of C.Ws. 37 and 38 having regard to the date on which it is recorded lend no credence to place reliance, in a case of this nature where an innocent dedicated officer in discharging of his duty has been hacked to death by this inhuman criminals, the Court cannot loose its sight, as it is the duty of the Court to see that a signal should be sent to the Society to these types of hardened criminals who have indulged in a case of this nature resulting in the death of innocent Government officer in due discharge of the duties should meet the punishment that is provided under law subject to proof of the same. Since now at this stage, there is material connecting this petitioner to the alleged murder of the deceased, merely because he is in custody since 6.6.2012 would not enure to his benefit for enlarging him on bail. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial has not proceeded for want of Presiding Officer, I may observe here that the officers are going to be posted in a fortnight and the trial would commence within a short time. In the circumstances, I see no merit in the petition accordingly it is dismissed.