SHRI. GANGADHARA ALIAS CHARSI AND SHRI KESHAVASWAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, who are arrayed as A34 and A35 in CC No. 1696/2012 on the file of the JMFC, Nelamangala, registered for the offences under Sections, 143, 147, 148, 120B, 341, 323, 324, 302, 307, 427, 506, 114 r/w 149 IPC and under Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, are before this Court praying for enlarging them on bail. It is the case of the prosecution, deceased B.M.L. Krishnappa was a member of the Zilla Panchayat, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. There were differences between him and A1 in connection with A1 having murdered one Basaiah in the year 2005, who was a follower of the present deceased B.M.L. Krishnappa. Further, in retaliation to the same, in the year 2009, one Devi -brother of A1 had been murdered by the followers of the present deceased B.M.L. Krishnappa. Apart from this, A1 and his followers had made an attempt on the life of the present deceased in the year 2009. On account of this, they were nursing grudge against each other. It is the case of the prosecution, the accused in the case, on account of the rivalry that existed between A1 and the deceased, hatched a conspiracy to finish off the deceased. Such conspiracy, according to the prosecution, had been hatched by the accused in the case since 10.07.2012. Such being the position, it is the case of the prosecution, on 25.07.2012, the deceased accompanied with C.Ws. 1, 2, 12 and 13 proceeded in a Innova Car driven by C.W. 3 towards his village Arashinakunte, coming within the jurisdiction of Nelamangala Police Station. He was followed by C.Ws. 4, 12 and 13 in another car. Apart from that, C.Ws. 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 followed the deceased in Pajero car. When the deceased was about to take a deviation to proceed to his village Arashinakunte near the service road junction located at NH4, the accused, who had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and were waiting for the deceased at the said place sitting in their respective cars intercepted the car of the deceased at the said place. Thereafter, it is alleged the accused in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched and in pursuance of the common object of unlawful assembly, they hackled the deceased after dragging him out of the car. Further, when C.W. 1 intervened to rescue the deceased, he was also assaulted by the accused and attempted to commit his murder. Apart from this, the other witnesses, who were following the deceased, among whom C.W. 4 -gunman, who was in the second car along with C.Ws. 12 and 13, seeing the deceased being attacked and heckled by the accused, opened fire with the SBBL gun, which was provided to him, on the accused. The shot fired by him landed on A9, who died at the spot. Thereafter, it is the case of the prosecution, altercations took place between the two groups in which accused are alleged to have assaulted and caused injuries to C.W. 3 -driver of the car. After committing the offence, according to the prosecution, the accused left the spot.

(2.) THE present accused, who are A34 and A35, came to be arrested by the police during the course of investigation on 12.8.2012. They are in custody since that date.

(3.) PER contra, Sri H.M. Thimmarayappa, learned Special Public Prosecutor contends, the presence of these two persons at the spot is spoken is to by C.Ws. 1, 6 and 163, wherein they have specifically stated that these two persons were present at the time of occurrence and in fact the statement of C.W. 6 reveals that A34 tried to close the door of the Innova Car in which the deceased had come near the spot in order to see that he does not escape from the clutches of the accused, which would indicate the clear participation of A34 in commission of the offence. He, further submits, the statements of C.Ws. 23, 24, 25 and 26 clearly reveals that all the accused in this case including these petitioners had hatched conspiracy on different dates to commit murder of the deceased and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the accused have committed the offences alleged against them He further vehemently contended as the statements of C.Ws. 228 and 310 reveal that A4 has made extra judicial confession implicating these petitions as the culprits in the case, by virtue of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, 1872, at this stage it has to be taken that the petitioners have participated in the crime and they have indulged in committing a barbarous act of murder by waylaying the deceased. Having regard to the background in which the occurrence has taken place and taking into account that they are all influential both politically and financially, if they are granted the relief there is every possibility of they tampering with the prosecution witnesses, which would effect the main case. Therefore, he submitted, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail, at this stage.