High Court Karnataka High Court

Muniraju @ Ballaiah S/O Anjinappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Muniraju @ Ballaiah S/O Anjinappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2009
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
\..l LT lVU.4.U..c.'.J d.U'U"I

IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TI-HS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2009
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVATSALAV_: _
CREMINAL PETITION NO.262/2009  C in 

BETWEEN:

Muniraju @ Ballaiah,

S / o Anjinappa,

Age: 36 years,

New Binnarnangala,

Indiranagar Post, _     
Bangalore. A        Petitioner

(By Sri Siddharth B Muchandi, Ade, f¢rt"p'et1.t:_§fi¢ i_ 

AND:

The State of Karnagtaka;  V C . 

By Rarnarnurthynagar'Poli'Oe S-station,

Bangalore    ., _ V Respondent
(By  I-ICGP, for respondent)s

This'"Crirnitial.:l~'"l5etition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of

_ _V'C.I_'l'I1'1'£'I1al Procedure, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in S C

ll\ToZ€328','A2OO8 on the file of Prl. City Civil 85 S.J., Bangalore [Crime

 «O «iNo.428O/200.?' of Rarnamurthynagar P S), which is registered for the
 ._offenee--..Linder Sections 302 and 307 r/ W Section 34 of I P C.

    Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made

. it C  A -- the 'following:



Crlj? No.262/2009

Ix)

ORDER

The petitioner/ accused No.2 in S C No.628/2O08_;o”r1*

Pr}. City Civil 85 Sessions Judge at Bangalore

Court under Section 439 of the Code of Proced1:1fe.;see1gin:g

bail for the offence under Sections 30?’ and 3’O?”‘r/w Section «34°’of°éhe= ”

Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of thevprosecutiton vddthi-“”‘«T_’ti;ntervening night
of 263′ and 2731 of ,’ :\ivh’en:”C’the_.deceased~»Vijayaku1nar
was proceeding EJ 238 belonging to
C.W–19 and ohvvefvdhridge near Kasturinagar,
accused bearing N0.KA 03 MC 9895.

There was Vaccide’ntq”betwee’:1:”the two wheeler and the Qualis.
Accused xrtrerev—9-ccupants of the Qualis Van. There was

scuffle betWee’nth,e’tVtWo viz., the deceased on one side and accused

on other. C.W-1, who too had gone for attending

.:dj.C.1’3i;’t}:d_ay part_vt1..j~ke the deceased, came to the spot and he pacified

No.s.3 and 4. In the meantime, accused Nos.3 and 4

‘V.C=o_ntacted accused Nos.1 and 5 and requested them to come to the

maccused Nosl and 5 came in a Maruthi Zen Car armed with

9

,

Crl.P No.262/2009

weapons. The accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly
and in furtherance of the common object, they assaulted the
deceased with longs and other weapons. The complainant wa’sp also

assaulted. On arrival of C.W–3, they took the deceased…alr1d’_C’.fill?”1,;

injured to Manipal Hospital. The deceased died it

treatment in the Hospital. After C.W–1 re”;gained_conscious, .he’V”file’d

the complaint.

3. Learned Government PleadVer,__”su_bmit”s that theigarosecutioni V

has made out a prima facie case for the offence under Section 302 of

I P C against the petitioner.

4. Learned’ Counsel”for._th–ep”petitioner submits that accused
No.4/Shabresh has. been grantediianticipatory bail and therefore the

present pc’titio:f1ee1r also may-..be’granted bail.

5i’I.earned ‘Government Pleader submits that accused No.4 has

Tbeeri.penlargedtonVbail on the ground that he only assaulted the

Qcomplainnarité and he was a student and granting anticipatory bail to

‘V_the”«accused is of no avail to the case of the petitioner.

low

Crl.P No.262/2009

6. There are eye witnesses to the alleged incident. There is a

material on record to establish that the prosecution has macteiiout a

prima facie case as against the petitioner for the offer2oe..__”uiif.ier

Section 302 of I P C. I see no good ground to er11arge:4_:thve’égtitioinerx

on bail. _

7. In the result, the Petition fails

dismissed.

Bjs

T the it is ”