Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 184 (KAR)

Kumara S/o Huchhegowda v. State of Karnataka

2018-02-08

BUDIHAL R.B.

body2018
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 114, 302 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 36/2016. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1, so also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a civil dispute between the petitioner and the complainant’s side. It is also his submission that the complainant and CWs. 2 and 3 are not at all eye-witnesses to the incident. In this connection, learned counsel submitted that as per the complaint averments and their statement, the incident took place when the deceased was cutting the tree and has produced sketch and has drawn the attention of the Court. Learned counsel submitted that the tree was already cut and the place of incident is also far away from the said tree. Hence, he submitted that these witnesses have been planted by the petitioners for the purpose of the case and for more than two years the petitioner was in custody. The Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is also filed. Hence, by imposing any reasonable conditions, he may be admitted to regular bail. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition contending that complainant is the eye-witness, who is the wife of the deceased and other two persons CWs.2 and 3, who were present at the spot and also the eye-witnesses to the incident. Prima-facie, verifying the material available on record, the accused have committed the alleged offence. He also submitted that voluntary statement at the instance of petitioner herein has also been recorded. Hence, the present petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case, so also the sketch produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Looking to the materials placed on record, they goes to show that complainant is the eye-witness and C.Ws.2 and 3 are the witnesses to the incident. 5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case, so also the sketch produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Looking to the materials placed on record, they goes to show that complainant is the eye-witness and C.Ws.2 and 3 are the witnesses to the incident. Apart from that even on earlier occasion, the present petitioner approached this Court and this Court by order dated 15.03.2017 passed in Crl.P.No.659/2017, discussed the entire merits of the case and ultimately rejected the petition and in the operative portion of the said order at paragraph No.5. It is opined by the Court “Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, in my view, prima facie the allegations contained in the petition does not entitle the petitioner an order of bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.” 7. So even on earlier occasion also the merits were considered by this Court and the bail petition came to be rejected. When the eye-witnesses are examined, the voluntary statements of the present petitioners are recorded, chopper is recovered during the investigation and even the opinion of the Doctor regarding the cause of death is consistent with the prosecution case, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of petitioner. Accordingly, petition is rejected.