Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 655 (KAR)

Muthu Raj v. State of Karnataka

2022-05-24

H.P.SANDESH

body2022
JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No. 16 in Crime No. 90/2021 of Robertsonpet Police Station, K.G.F., for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 212, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 23.10.2021 at around 10:30 p.m., when the complainant, deceased and others reached near Loodran Church, in front of their Car, a car was stopped and suddenly caused the accident on the backside of the vehicle. Hence, the driver of their Car stopped the vehicle and the assailants have surrounded their vehicle and assaulted with long and knife, as a result, he himself sustained the injuries on the left cheek and the Car Driver sustained the injuries on the right hand, and also inflicted the injuries on the head of Ajay, as a result, he fell down and the injured Rajkumar tried to escape from the spot and he was chased from the accused persons and inflicted injuries and immediately he was taken to the hospital, thereafter, he was referred to Bengaluru Hospital and the injured succumbed to the injuries. The police have registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. In the charge sheet, the specific allegations are made against accused Nos. 1 to 8, this petitioner and accused No. 12 that they have chased the victim into the passage in E.T. Block and assaulted with a long and other accused persons repeatedly assaulted on his face, back and other parts of the body, as a result, he sustained 18 injuries. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner is in custody from the last 7 months and he also undergone heart surgery and no specific overt act allegation is made against this petitioner and only an allegation made is that along with other accused persons, he also chased and inflicted injuries. Thereafter, after committing the murder, screened the evidence by destroying the clothes and also the weapons which they have used are thrown in the water in the plastic bag. When there is no specific allegation against the petitioner herein, he may be enlarged on bail. Thereafter, after committing the murder, screened the evidence by destroying the clothes and also the weapons which they have used are thrown in the water in the plastic bag. When there is no specific allegation against the petitioner herein, he may be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that accused Nos. 18 and 19 were enlarged on bail. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stressed upon the statement of the alleged eye witnesses that there is a discrepancy that they came to know about the incident but the Court has to take into note of the total statement of eyewitness, wherein, they have stated that they are along with the injured and also they have sustained the injuries. Hence, the contention that they came to know about the information in the bottom of the statement will not pressed into the aid of the learned counsel for the petitioner as contended. The Court has to take note of in-toto statement of the injured witnesses while considering the bail petition. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that this petitioner is also a part of unlawful assembly and all of them inflicted injuries with deadly weapons and as a result the victim has sustained 18 injuries. There are eyewitnesses to the incident, who are there along with the victim and they have also sustained the injuries and also an attempt is made to take away the lives of eyewitnesses. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. 7. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, taking into note of the material collected by the Investigating Officer, the specific allegations are made against this petitioner along with other accused persons that when the victim tried to escape from the clutches of the assailants, all of them have chased and accused No. 1 inflicted injury with a long and other accused persons, who have chased also inflicted injury with deadly weapons. CWs.1 to 3 are the prosecution witnesses, who have sustained the injuries and also they are the eyewitnesses to the incident. CWs.1 to 3 are the prosecution witnesses, who have sustained the injuries and also they are the eyewitnesses to the incident. When such being the material on record, when there is direct evidence against this petitioner that they have chased along with other accused persons and the victim also sustained multiple injuries i.e., 18 injuries and the same is a barbaric act and committed the murder. When the other injured eyewitnesses also made the statement before the police, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 8. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner is in custody from the last 7 months and the investigation has been completed is not a ground when a barbaric act has been done i.e., chased him and committed the murder. Hence, it is not a case for granting bail by exercising the discretion. 9. The other contention is that the petitioner underwent heart ailment is also not a ground when a serious offence of murder is alleged against the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to enlarge him on bail. 10. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kumer Singh v. State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2021 Crl.L.J. 4244, categorically held that while considering the bail application, it is required to be noted that all the accused are charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC. It is further observed that the individual role of the accused is not required to be considered when they are alleged to have been the part of the unlawful assembly. The Apex Court also taken note of there were 26 injuries found on the dead body of the deceased and 11 injuries on the injured Vikram Singh by blunt and sharp weapons. 11. In the case on hand, the victim has sustained 18 injuries and the other eyewitnesses have also sustained injuries. When such being the factual aspects, the individual role of the accused is not required to be considered while considering the bail petition as held in the Apex Court in Kumer Singh's case (supra). 12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The bail petition is rejected.