RAVIKUMAR @ KARIYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is accused no.3 is seeking to be enlarged on bail consequent to his arrest in Crime No.398/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147 , 148 , 323 , 307 , 302 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 25 (1) (B) (b) of the Arms Act .

(2.) The case that is made out by the prosecution is that CW.1 had lodged a complaint alleging that when the complainant along with his elder brother Muruga and his friends were consuming alcohol next to the house of the complainant, someone had telephoned to Nimhans Raja, charge-sheet accused no.16 and heard him communicating on phone that the complainant, his brother and his friend were consuming alcohol together. It is further stated that when they were getting ready to go home, by that time accused nos.1, 2, charge-sheet accused no.17, charge-sheet accused no.16 and other 8 to 9 persons came in two autos and two bikes and collided with the vehicle of the complainant, due to which complainant and his brother fell down and they tried to escape and started running. At that time, accused nos.1, 2, charge-sheet accused no.16 and 17 along with 8 to 9 other persons chased the complainant's brother and assaulted him causing his death. Consequent to this incident, complaint came to be made, FIR was registered, investigation was taken up and charge-sheet has been filed. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 22.11.2018.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he has not been named in the complaint or FIR at the first instance and the main allegation as against the accused who were identified is only of accused nos.1, 2, 3, charge- sheet accused no.16 and 17. It is further submitted that the motive of pre-existing enmity is in between the deceased and accused nos.1 and 2 as made out in the 161 statement of accused no.1 recorded on 21.11.2018. It is further submitted that it is only in the further statement recorded on 30.11.2018 of the complainant that the identity of the petitioner has been established after showing the accused to CW.1 in the police station. Accordingly, it is contended that identity itself is vitiated as there are procedural lapses by revealing the identity of the accused to CW.1 prior to trial and test identification parade.