MADESHA @ LOOSE MADHA, S/O RAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MADIWALA POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein has been arraigned as accused No. 5 in S.C. No. 181/11 on the file of Fast Track Court -XVII, Bangalore City. He along with other accused persons is charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. According to the case of the prosecution, during the night of 26.9.2010 in an Orchestra held in Balaji Lay Out, there was a quarrel between accused No. 1 and others; deceased Dinesh, elder brother of CW.I -Shravan Kumar, intervened in the said quarrel, pacified all of them and by slapping accused No. 1 sent him away from the place; in this background, at about 7.45 p.m. on 27.9.2010, when CW.1. deceased along with CWS.6, 7 and 8 were removing the shed errected in front of house of CW.4 for installing Ganesha idol, accused No. 1 along with his associates numbering about 7 to 8 came there armed with weapons and by picking up quarrel with deceased, stabbed him with knives on the chest and other parts of the body causing him severe injuries to which he succumbed.

(2.) IN respect of this incident, CW.1 lodged a report at about 10.15 p.m. on 27.9.2010 based on which case in Crime No. 1118/10 came to be registered and investigation was taken up. The case was initially registered against accused No. 1 - Satish Babu @ Aiyyappa, accused No 2 Vasu @ Ole Vasu and 7 to 8 others. During investigation, the complicity of this petitioner was reported to have been revealed. Therefore, he was arraigned as accused No. 5. Thereafter, he was apprehended and subjected to judicial custody. As his prayer for bail came to be rejected, both by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner is before this court seeking the relief of bail. In the meanwhile, Investigating Officer after completing the investigation laid the charge sheet for the aforesaid offence and the matter has already been committed to the Court of Sessions. The petitioner along with others has been facing the charge for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) IT is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in the First Information Report lodged at the earliest point of time by the younger brother of the deceased who also claims to be an eyewitness, the name of this petitioner did not find a place nor it was staled in the said report that any of the assailants kicked the deceased with their legs, however, subsequently, the name of the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as such there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the aforesaid offence. It is also his submission that even according to the statements of CWs.6 to 8 who claimed to be eye -witnesses, the overt act attributed against this petitioner is that he and other accused persons kicked the deceased with their legs and according to the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination, the death of the deceased was due to the stab injuries sustained on the left side of the chest as such the acts said to have been committed by the petitioner herein was not in any way responsible for the death of the deceased. It is also the submission that this Court has already granted bail to accused Nos. 4 and 7 whose names finds place in the FIR and who said to have held the deceased thereby facilitated the other assailants to inflict fatal blows, therefore, the petitioner stands oh a better footing than those two accused who have been enlarged on bail as such the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.