RAJU V Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for enlarging him on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in the Crime No.217/2018 of Magadi Road Police station for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 307, 302 and 120(B) read with 149 of IPC.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that wife of the deceased has lodged a complaint against the accused stating that on 12.10.2018, the BDA had demolished the house of accused No.1, which is adjacent to the house of the complainant. On 14.10.2018, it is stated that there was a meeting between the husband of the complainant, who is the President of the Maruthi Vidya Samsthe and one Gangamma, who had constructed the house by the side of the school illegally. When such talks were going on regarding the demolition of the house of Gangamma, it is stated that the son of Gangamma and his friends entered into the room with knife, "machu", sword and assaulted the deceased and fled away. The deceased succumbed to injuries.

(3.) The petitioner states that he has been in judicial custody since 29.10.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that the name of the accused No.8 was not mentioned in the complaint. In fact even in the charge sheet, the only role attributed to the petitioner was that he was involved in the planning and the conspiracy to do away with the deceased. It is further the case of the petitioner that even in Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Cws.2,3,4 and 5 that has been recorded, there is no mention of the role of accused No.8 in causing injuries to the deceased. In fact it is stated that the fatal injuries have been inflicted upon the deceased by the other accused. It is also to be noted that the petitioner is aged about 64 years and taking note of the fact that nothing has been mentioned as regards the petitioner in the complaint and also taking note of the contents of the charge sheet wherein, accused No.8 is only said to have planned commission of the crime and has been involved in the conspiracy which are matters of proof during trials and also considering the age of the petitioner and statement of CWs-2, 3, 4 and 5, under sec.164 of Cr.P.C. the case is made out for enlarging the petitioner on bail.