IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11" DAY 0? FEBRUARY, zfilbgig
BEFORE:
THE HON'ELE MR. JUSTICE A s. 2AéHHA$Ufieex
CRIMINAL PETITION No 5794 gg ggg§v*
Cflw, ', i'A
CRIMINAL PETITION No 253 9; ghldz x"
IN CRL.P. No.6794/e9}*. 7
BETWEEN:
Muddurajr _m x:V g
3/0. Virupakehappa,.'
Aged 27 yearska""*; 3,: ..;
R/at Kalaviba§iCGrama,°A'aV
Hiriyur~Post}. '"" 7 '
Hiriyur Talnk};HV , .,", _
Chitradurga District, g_'_ M PETITIONER/S
[By M/s.fiagendTa Naidn; L. Sudharshan &
Mohandas, Advs E
, véE2€.
State by Chamerejpet Police,
Repreeented by SPP,
High Coutt, Bangalore. W RESPONDENT/S
u'", {By Sriefiaja Subramanya Bhat, HCGP.}
,_e ***
This Crl.P. is filed u/Section 439 Cr.P C by
V"_the Advocate for the petitioner praying to release
V,tfie petitioner on bail in Crime No.87/09 of
.4jChamarajapet Police Station pending on the file of I
Addl. CM, Bangalore for the offence p/u/Ss.l43,
144, 147, 148, 302 r/w 140 of IPC.
IN CRL.P. No.253/10:
BETWEEN:
Kumar,
S/o. Puttaiah,
Aged about 32 years,
R/0.57/3, "A" Cross,
"B" Street, J.J.Nagar, 3 § --. ~ * w 2g 3
Bangalore. ,',_ to "m £?E$I$l0$ER/S_"
{By Sri.R.B. Deshpande & _ _ -a
Sri Dinesh Kumar K. Rae, Adve.]
AND:
The State of Karnatakagbyg _
ChamarajapethPoliee.Station¢1W
Bafl9alore.5 ' '"l ll" "
RESPONDENT/S
{By Srirflajafsfihramanya Bhat}"HCGP.]
"W§**
This or; 9.715-filed u/Section 439 Cr.P.C by
the Advocate for the petitioner praying to enlarge
x"the-_fietitioner Von bail in Crime No 87/09 of
Chamaiajapet* Police Station, Bangalore, for the
hoffences,p/fi[s$,143, 144, 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of
IPC;
'ThéeéCr1.Bm coming on for Orders on this day,
lthe Court made the following:
ORDER
These petitions have been field having been
liharrested and chargesheeted for the offenigiww
punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 14.3, 302
r/W. 149 IPC.
2. The facts relevant for the purpose of thesewk
petitions are as under:
The petitioner in lthez main icafiég is “accused
No.9, whereas the petitioner in the connected matter
is accused No.10. in the year 2003, the deceased
and one Krishnamurthyiz were! lassaulted by the
followers ‘of;-1 that connection,
the deceased had §:gesl5~§§§plalnt against the said
accusedi “ySo y stars “was [previous enmity between
accused Nofl and the deceased.
.lt is the case of the prosecution that on the
date, cflvthed-incident i.e-, on 26.03.2009, accused
Nos?1;t6tl2_formed an unlawful assembly with deadly
V _weapons like longs, choppers, knives etc. and caused
“lxthe death of Narasimhamurthy by assaulting him with
d_the=said weapons.
3. The petitioners submit that they are
innocent and they have not committed any crime, much
less the one alleged against them. They have been
34
5 V – , M
\. W
31:” 7; . P 2 C?
hind side of the neck of the deceased, ,whereas
accused No.10 has caused assault on the back of the
deceased with knives. Hence, he submits that there
is prima facie case agaisnt mthe –fietitioners =andg
requests to reject both the petitions}, .d
5. I have heard the Jearned connsel for the
petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader.
6. The paint that arises for hy consideration
is;
,v’*Whether§” “”” ‘the xpétitioners are
entitled to~V:”tc,he»_]oa.i”l_.sought for?
. ?. ‘The pergsal of the record reveal that at
Ax the ,first, instances, C.W.2«Srinivasa, who is none
other than the injured witness states that about 6~7
_persons (caused. the assault on the deceased. Any
hixhow, his statement was recorded later on 28.03.2009
°_in which he has stated that accused Nos 1 to 12 have
V” caused assault with longs, choppers and knives. So
.far as accused No.1 is concerned, he has caused
assaulted with long on the head of the deceased and
particularly there is enmity’ between the deceased
54,
s
\
“U r”) “”3
iv
xi”
[Ad
F
:” 3»
ii) They shall not cause any threat,*,
force, coercion or influence ;teV,*
any of the prosecution witnesse§;[f, ”
Ksm*