Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 138 (KAR)

Laurence @ Lal @ Gunashekar v. State of Karnataka

2023-01-25

H.P.SANDESH

body2023
JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.172/2019 of Halasur Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(b) of IPC and Section 25(1)(B)(b) of Arms Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased Prakash @ Kashi is the friend of the complainant. He called the complainant to Thamaraikannan road, at about 7.45 p.m., when the complainant reached to the spot, the deceased had come at traffic signal at the same juncture and at that time one Larence @ Lal and his friend Abhi and other two persons came in a auto and they assaulted the deceased on his head by Long and another accused - Abhi was assaulted by Long on the deceased after fall on the ground, at that time, the complainant was tried to save the deceased, but those culprits were shown the Long towards him and tried to assault him, but the complainant escaped, then the persons brought the deceased were went away from the place in the auto. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered. 4. This petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing a Crl.P.No.8274/2021 and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-payment of cost, not on the merits. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that eye-witnesses that is CW1 and CW2 have been examined as PW1 and PW4 before the Trial Court and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and PW5 and PW6 who are the recovery witnesses also been examined and they have also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and in total, PW1 to PW11 were examined and the counsel also submits that accused No.2 has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.10369/2022 vide order dated 04.01.2023 on the ground that eye-witnesses who have been examined before the Trial Court have not supported the case of the prosecution and also observed that eye-witnesses have been examined and material witnesses were examined and the petitioner was in custody for more than three years and six months and now the question of tampering the eye-witnesses does not arise. Hence, the counsel also prays granting of bail in favour of this petitioner on the ground on parity. 5. The learned HCGP appearing for the State would vehemently contend that this petitioner is not entitled for the bail on he ground of parity and further submits that he is an habitual offender and having 32 cases against him and he is the prime accused and hence, prays to reject the bail petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that the incident was taken place in the year 2019 and the petitioner was arrested in the year 2019 and he had been in custody from last three years and six months. Apart from that accused No.2 already enlarged on bail by this Court and this Court while enlarging accused No.2 taken note of the fact that eye-witnesses who have been examined as PW1 and PW4 were completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and apart from that PW5 and PW6 who are the recovery witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution and in total, PW1 to PW11 have been examined. When such being the case, when already discretion is exercised in favour of accused No.2 and this petitioner is accused No.1, the very contention of the counsel for the State that this petitioner is the main accused and he is master minded and he only inflicted the injury and also having 32 cases against him cannot be a ground to reject the bail petition and the Court has to take note of the material found against the accused and though charges were framed against him that he is the main accused and along with other accused persons committed the murder, the Court has to evaluate the material available on record particularly, in respect of the case in which he has been in custody. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the counsel appearing for the State and having taken note that the material witnesses who have been examined and particularly eye-witnesses that is CW1 and CW2 who have been examined as PW1 and PW4, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 7. Hence, it is appropriate to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.1 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.172/2019 of Halasur Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(b) of IPC and Section 25(1)(B)(b) of Arms Act, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.