Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1517 (KAR)

Roobin @ Jayanth S/o. Raja v. State of Karnataka

2017-11-13

BUDIHAL R.B.

body2017
ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking release on bail for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 341, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC registered by the respondent-Police in Crime No.132/2016. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner-Accused No.1, so also, the arguments of the learned High Court Govt. Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. Counsel for the petitioner made the submission that looking to the prosecution material itself, in fact there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the prosecution subsequently planted the witnesses as if they are the eyewitnesses to the incident. Learned counsel refers to the statement of witnesses, viz., Ravikumar, N. Rajappa, Manjunath and Ananth Kumar. Referring to their statement, he made the submission that even their statement also goes to show that they are not eye-witnesses to the incident. Counsel further made the submission that now investigation of the accused is complete. Charge-sheet is also filed. Accused No.4 has been already granted bail by this Court. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner-Accused No.1 may be admitted to grant of bail. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Govt. Pleader made the submission that name of the present accused finds a place in the F.I.R. He also made the submission that there is a motive for Accused No.1 for committing the murder of Ahbishek. It is also his submission that looking to the statement of eye-witnesses, one of the eye-witness Ananth Kumar has specifically stated that three persons assaulted the deceased with deadly weapons. Roobin, the present petitioner is also one of them. He submitted that since there are eye-witnesses to the incident and even the further statement of the eye-witnesses also supports the case of the prosecution, petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail. 5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, F.I.R, complaint and also the other material which are statements of witnesses produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so also, the order on the bail application passed by the learned Sessions Judge, City Civil Court at Bengaluru, wherein the bail petition came to be rejected. 6. 5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, F.I.R, complaint and also the other material which are statements of witnesses produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so also, the order on the bail application passed by the learned Sessions Judge, City Civil Court at Bengaluru, wherein the bail petition came to be rejected. 6. Considering the statements made in the complaint by the wife of the deceased, there is a motive alleged that Ashwini, the sister of the deceased was given in marriage to the present petitioner Roobin and both of them wanted to stay in the house of the deceased, for which, deceased was not agreeing. The further allegation in the complaint goes to show that as per the say of somebody and the present petitioner, Ashwini, the sister of the deceased was claiming that she is also having the right in the property of her parents and they were having grudge towards deceased as he had neither allowed them to stay in his house nor given any share in the property. 7. I have also perused the statement of witnesses. Looking to the statement of Ananth Kumar, one of the eyewitness whose statement has been recorded on the very next day of the incident, it is specifically stated that he had seen three persons who were holding knife and dragger, assaulted deceased Abhishek and the present petitioner was one among them. At this stage, there is an eye-witness to the incident. 8. I have perused the post mortem report and also the doctor’s opinion regarding the cause of death. Death is due to multiple injuries. Therefore, the opinion of the doctor is also consistent with the case of the prosecution. Since there is an eye-witness to the incident, prima facie, there is a motive for Accused No.1 and his name is figured in the F.I.R. at the first instance, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. 9. Petition is hereby rejected.