VENKATARAMANAPPA Vs. K R SUBRAMANY SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 8 in Crime No.473/90 of Mulbagal police station, which is registered for offences punishable under Sections 143,147, 148,324,302 read with 149 I.P.C., Petitioners filed similar petitions before the learned Sessions Judge, Kolar and the learned Sessions Judge, Kolar rejected their petitions for bail. Hence they have filed these petitions. Since these two petitions arc filed by the petitioners who are accused in the same crime number, I have heard both the petitions together and I am passing a common order in them. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr. P.N. 47/91 and the learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. P.No. 1606/90 and also the learned Government Pleader and perused the records of the case.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is as follows: That on 24.10.1990 at 9 a.m. the complainant Aslam Pasha was going alongwith the deceased Fiyaz at Kurubarapalya, Mulbagal town and at that time communal riots started there and when the complainant and the deceased were at Dobipalya, petitioners and another accused who is still absconding, came in a group holding Machu, clubs, choppers and stones in their hands and attacked them and the accused Nagesh Babu hit him with a stone on his face and whereas the other accused attacked Fiyas with Machu and dubs on his head, face and back as a result of which he fell dawn and on seeing the incident the complainant ran away from that place and he lodged his complaint at 9.45 a.m. in Mulbagal Police Station which came to be registererd by the Police at Crime No. 473/90. The police investigated into the case and they have filed charge sheet against the petitioners and one more accused which is still absconding and the case is pending in the Court of J.M.F.C., Mulbagal at C.C. No. 587/90.

(3.) Inquest was conducted on the dead body of the deceased and the dead body was subjected to the post-mortem examination. In the post mortem report, the Medical Officer has opined that the death of the deceased Fias, was due to injury to brain associated with haemorrhage. Therefore this is a case of homicidal death. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr.P.No. 47/91 argued that the deceased died due to police firing in Mulbagal town and the police in order to save their own skin have filed this false case against the petitioners. When the Court is dealing with the bail application, the Court is required to find out whether there are any grounds to grant bail to the petitioners on the basis of the material that is collected by the prosecution during investigation. The material that is collected ill the form of post-mortem examination shows, that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him and not by gun shot injuries. The learned counsel contended that the post mortem is also a concoction. Whether the post-mortem is a concoction or not or whether the police have manoeuvred this case in order to save their own skin, is a matter to be decided at the time of trial of the offences. The learned counsel also contended that there were reports in press and T.V. to the effect that two persons died in police firing in Mulbagal town. The court will not be justified in taking into account of the reports, if any, published in the papers or announced on the T.V. while deciding a bail application. The learned counsel also contended that a statement was made by responsible persons on the floor of the house in the Assembly in this connection. But the learned Government Pleader submitted that he has, ascertained and all the statements they have made is to the effect that justice would be done in the case. Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr. P.No.47/91 are wholly irrelevant for disposal of this petition.