Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 641 (KAR)

Narendra @ Naru v. State Of Karnataka

2020-03-05

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the records. 2. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.788/2020 is arraigned as accused No.1 and petitioner in Crl.P.No.895/2020 is arraigned as accused No.16, have approached this Court for grant of regular bail, in connection with the sessions case No.1851/2019 pending on the file of the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [CCH-61] for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 120-B, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC. 3. The brief factual matrix of the case as could be seen from the entire charge sheet are that the deceased by name Varun and also another person by name Manjunath.Y.V @ Thamma Manja were friends. The deceased Y.V.Manjunath said to have been committed murder of the brother of the accused No.1 by name Tablet Raghu. Accused No.14 and accused No.5 were also sustained injuries due to the said incident. Therefore, the accused persons were waiting for an opportunity to do away with the life of the deceased Thammamanja and Varun. In this context, it is alleged that on 25.08.2019, the accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 16 along with accused No.17 went in a car Hundai i20 belongs to the accused No.2 and found that the deceased persons were there near Sindhura Convention Hall. The deceased persons went in a Maruti Suzuki Access scooter bearing registration No.KA-05-KC-1623. The said scooter was being followed by the above said accused persons in their car. When the said scooter reached near the 24th main road, when they taken left turn, the said car dashed against the said scooter from behind and due to which, deceased persons fell down from the scooter. Taking advantage of the same, accused No.17 assaulted on the head of the deceased- Varun with an iron rod. The deceased-Manja jumped and made attempts to run away from his path through 24th main road. In that context, it is alleged that the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 16 and 17 have chased the deceased-Manja and assaulted him. Accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 and juvenile offender by name Pavan, took the Maruti Ertiga Car bearing No.KA-41-C-8030 to the spot in order to help other accused persons to escape from the spot. On the basis of the above allegations, the respondent-police have registered a case and investigated the matter. 4. Accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 and juvenile offender by name Pavan, took the Maruti Ertiga Car bearing No.KA-41-C-8030 to the spot in order to help other accused persons to escape from the spot. On the basis of the above allegations, the respondent-police have registered a case and investigated the matter. 4. During the course of the investigation, the police have also recorded the statement of the eye witnesses CWs.-7, 9, 10 and 14 on the very next date of incident i.e., on 26.08.2019. Of course, there is some recovery at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 16 with reference to the weapons and other things used to assault and commit the murder. 5. On plain reading of the statement of the eyewitnesses, they have specifically identified the accused persons, particularly accused Nos.1 and 16 as assailants and they have stated that they have identified the accused persons after their arrest in the police station. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners precisely contends before the Court that this Court in many number of cases particularly in Crl.P.No.8686/2018 vide orders dated 03.07.2019 and also in Crl.P.No.7560/2017 vide order dated 05.01.2018 has made an observation that at the earliest point of time in the remand applications, if the recording of the statement of eyewitnesses is not stated by the police in veracity, the doubt arises in the prosecution investigation. Therefore, the accused persons are entitled for grant of bail. 7. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends before the Court that the accused persons were actually identified by the eye witnesses immediately after the arrest of the accused persons in the police station during the test identification parade. Therefore, such identification also cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. 8. On careful perusal of the statement of the eyewitnesses, it is clear that the eye witnesses have stated about the incident and on the very next date, the statement has been recorded. The first remand application was filed on 27.08.2019. Though the names of the eyewitnesses have not been recorded but the police have specifically stated at page 3 of the said remand application that they have recorded the statement of eyewitnesses and as well as the statement of the relatives of the victim at the time of the inquest report. 9. Therefore, actually whose statements have been recorded, have not been mentioned in the remand application. 9. Therefore, actually whose statements have been recorded, have not been mentioned in the remand application. Though there is some discrepancy in the remand application, it cannot be construed that they have not at all recorded the statement of the eye witnesses. It has to be established during the course of full dressed trial. 10. The second point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is also not tenable because on the very next date itself, the statement of eye witnesses have been recorded immediately after the arrest of accused persons and they have also identified them in the police station. Of course, the substantial identification has to be made during the course of full dressed trial before the Court. But for the present, there is some material collected by the police for identification with reference to the alleged incident. Whether such identification in any way be altered before the Court at the time of the main judgment to be passed by the Trial Court after appreciation of materials available on record. Under the above stated facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the above said grounds are not sufficient to enlarge the petitioners on bail when the eye witnesses have been identified the accused person in police station immediately after the arrest of accused persons. Hence, both the petitions are devoid of merits and accordingly stand dismissed.