Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1207 (KAR)

Chethan @ Chethu v. State Of Karnataka

2019-06-12

S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner who is detained is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with the proceedings in Crime No.112/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.08.2017, while the informant was moving on one way road in a scooter, the petitioner is stated to have objected and there was verbal exchange of words. At 5.00 p.m. on the same day, the complainant is stated to have gone to a bakery to have tea, when the petitioner and two others came to the spot and picked up a quarrel and it is stated that the petitioner stabbed Karthik who intervened on his neck and left ribs with knife who later on succumbed to injuries and died. It is further stated that the petitioner is also stated to have assaulted C.W.14, who has suffered injuries in the said incident. 3. It is stated that the petitioner has been arrested and he has been in custody since 01.09.2017. It is further submitted that the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in fact, the petitioner had also suffered injuries and has relied upon the discharge summary of KIMS Hospital and states that this aspect of the matter regarding injuries suffered by the petitioner has not been adverted to in the charge sheet. It is further contended that the question of motive as such is not established. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the post-mortem examination report states that death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of penetrating injuries to the chest. He states that the question as to whether the injuries inflicted by the petitioner was the cause of death, is a matter to be proved during trial. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the version in the charge sheet is that the petitioner stabbed the deceased on his neck and left ribs. However, the findings of the post-mortem report as death was penetration to the chest resulting in the death of deceased is at variance with the said version in the charge sheet. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the version in the charge sheet is that the petitioner stabbed the deceased on his neck and left ribs. However, the findings of the post-mortem report as death was penetration to the chest resulting in the death of deceased is at variance with the said version in the charge sheet. 7. It is to be noted that the Sessions Court has dismissed the application for bail observing that mere filing of charge sheet does not in any way lessen the gravity of allegations against the petitioner and in fact, it strengthens the allegations made against the petitioner. It is not necessary to advert to the other aspects of the arguments advanced by the petitioner herein. 8. Taking note of the fact that the investigation is completed and that the petitioner is in custody since 01.09.2017, that prima facie there appears to be some force in the submission that the injury that caused death as per the post-mortem is in contradiction to the version as made out in the charge sheet. 9. Taking note of the above facts, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, subject to following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum before the concerned Court. (ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth. (iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness. (iv) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the concerned Station House Officer once in a month between 10.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m. on any day till the conclusion of trial. (v) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO. (vi) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail. 11. Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.