ARUNKUMAR @ ARUNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No. 5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120B and 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 619/2012. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 5 and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that the alleged incident has taken place during night on 20.7.2012. Though it is the case of the prosecution that the mother and brother of the deceased are the eye-witnesses, but as per the complaint, it was against four unknown persons. He has further submitted that the inquest over the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 21.7.2012 and at that time, statement of mother of the deceased and also C.W. 9 one Puttaswamy were recorded. Even at that time, the name of the present petitioner or names of any other accused persons has not been mentioned. It is reflected in paragraph No. 11 of the inquest mahazar proceedings. He has submitted that if really they are the eye-witnesses to the incident same could have been stated in the complaint at the first instance and there was no necessity to mention as four unknown persons and that it is only on 22.7.2012 i.e., two days after the alleged incident, further statement of mother, brother and other alleged eye-witnesses said to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer wherein the name of the present petitioner and other accused persons have been mentioned. Hence, the learned counsel has submitted that it is a deliberate act on the part of the complainant and other family members to involve petitioner in the alleged offences. He has also submitted that the present petitioner is not unknown to either complainant or his family members, because in their further statement it is mentioned that three months earlier to the incident, the petitioner along with other accused persons came and threatened the father of the deceased. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution and the present petitioner is falsely implicated in the case and that in the similar circumstances, this Court has granted bail. In this regard, he has relied upon the order passed by this Court dated 23.7.2013 in Cri. P. No. 2402/2013 and also the order dated 29.4.2008 passed in Cri. P. No. 1488/2008.

(3.) As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that there are eye-witnesses to the incident who have clearly stated about the involvement of the present petitioner and also assault made by the present petitioner on the head of the deceased with knife. Hence, the prosecution has placed prima facie material to show the involvement as well as assault made by the present petitioner and there is a recovery at, the instance of the present petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled to be granted with bail.