MAHESH ALIAS THATTE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 under section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 341, 302, 120-B read with Section 149 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No. 5/2016 and now pending in S.C. No. 969/2016 on the file of LXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-63).

(2.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the charge sheet material, one Venkatesh is said to be the eye-witness to the incident. Referring to the said statement of Venkatesh given under section 164 of Cr.P.C., 1973 before the JMFC Court, so also, before the Police, learned counsel has submitted that there is no consistency in both these statements. Therefore, it raises doubt whether really, he was present at the spot and witnessed the incident. The prosecution also relied upon the statement of C.W.3 one Pritam, who also claims to be the eye-witness to the incident, even perusing the statement of said C.W.3 also, it raises doubt about his presence in the said place. He has submitted that if really C.W.3 was present, then C.W.2 Venkatesh could have stated about the presence of C.W.3 at the spot. Hence, it is his contention that these two witnesses were planted by the prosecution as they are eye-witnesses. He has further submitted that accused Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 have been granted bail by the order of this Court and accused No. 5 has been granted bail by the order of the learned Sessions Judge. He has also submitted that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, hence, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioners may be enlarged on bail.