MANJUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioners have filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their enlargement on regular bail in Crime No.22/2018 of respondent Vidyagiri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 307, 120B, 504, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) The summary of the charge sheet filed in the matter reveals that accused No.1 was having a land bearing Sy. No.34 measuring 15 acres 31 guntas and in connection with his land there was a civil case pending before a Civil Court. The injured in the instant case is a practicing Advocate by name Bhimappa Doddamani and he was conducting the case against the present accused No.1. In this context, accused No.1 is said to have asked to negotiate with the present victim Bhimappa Doddamani (C.W.11) and requested him to settle the matter in the form of compromise with the client of C.W.1 and ensure that the property vests with the accused No.1. C.W.11, the Advocate is said to have refused to yield to the request of accused No.1 and said to have asked him to await the verdict of the Court to come. Enraged by this, accused No.1 said to have requested accused Nos.2 and 3 to do away with the life of C.W.11 and a conspiracy was hatched against themselves. To execute the alleged conspiracy, on 05.02.2018 at about 13:45 hours, when C.W.11 Bhimappa Doddamani, the Advocate was coming out from his Office and was about to walk on a public road, the present petitioners who were accused Nos.2 and 3 said to have attacked him with a long sickle and a knife and assaulted him on various parts of his body. After causing bleeding injuries to C.W.11, both the assailants are said to have fled from the scene. It is thereafter the injured was said to have been shifted to hospital by his elder brother and other persons before whom the injured is said to have disclosed the details of the incident. The said elder brother, Laxman lodged a complaint before the Police, upon which the complaint, Police have conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the alleged offences.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners in his argument submitted that the names of the present petitioners are not shown in the FIR, however, for the first time their names have appeared in the charge sheet. There is no basis and material to include the present petitioners in the alleged crime. Learned counsel further submitted that there is a delay in lodging the complaint for more than five hours, that too when the injured is said to have sitting on the platform in front of the Office of the Circle Police Inspector for long time. As such, the said detail about the incident itself creates a doubt about its manner of occurrence. He further submitted that alleged conspiracy said to have taken place, is said to be in a public place, which is a hotel which is also in front of a Police Station. As such, conspiracy said to have been taken in a hotel that too in a loud manner so that the other customers in the hotel could hear the terms of the conspiracy creates a doubt and makes the case of the prosecution doubtful, at this stage, to believe. He further submitted that the alleged recovery is also in a public place. As such, the recovery also carries suspicion. Further submitting that accused Nos.1 and 4 have already been granted the relief of bail and the investigation has been completed, learned counsel prays for enlargement of the present petitioners on bail, may be, with stringent conditions.