SHEKAR S Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 307 , 302 read with 149 of IPC , registered in respondent - police station Crime No.790/2016. But after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 144 , 147 , 148 , 307 , 120B , 150 , 302 read with 149 of IPC .

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case that the Venkatamma is the wife of complainant. Marappa, the father Venkatamma, has site property measuring 200 X 80 feet at Kasavanahalli, Bhovi colony, Bengaluru. Out of that, 100 X 80 half site was given to Venkatamma and another half site was given to her sister Parvathamma. The site belonged to Venkatamma was divided among her five children. Her second daughter Kanthamma was married to Dasharath (accused No.8). Somehow accused No.8 got transferred khata of the entire property in his name. Therefore, the deceased Sreenivasaiah, who is the son of Parvathamma, raised objection. Therefore, there was a panchayat, but accused No.8 has not agreed and regarding this site dispute incident has occurred. It is the further allegation that on 30.12.2016 after meeting advocate, the complainant, his son Venkatesh Babu and Sreenivasaiah returning in Nano car towards their house at Bhovi Colony and when they were near Amruth college, Manjunath/accused No.1, the relative of Dasharath, along with other accused came in a car, waylaid their car and attacked deceased Sreenivasaiah, who was driving the car, and caused injuries to him by Manjunath with knife on the neck and other parts of the body and when the complainant went to rescue Sreenivasaiah, he was also assaulted and the assailants went away causing injuries. The injured Sreenivasaiah was taken in auto rickshaw to Sakra Hospital for treatment, but the Doctor declared that he was brought dead. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the alleged offences against nine persons, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 in the FIR.

(3.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.