Ramamurthy vs State

Jawad Rahim, J.—Petitioner is the sole accused facing charge for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. He is in judicial custody and seeks bail. State has opposed the relief sought.

As could be seen from the prosecution papers one Mr. Prakash, driver of the Autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-09 B-1228, lodged a report alleging that while he was near Old Milk Dairy at Nanjangud Road, the petitioner along with one old man boarded the auto as passengers. While he was taking them to destination as indicated, enroute the petitioner is alleged to have picked up quarrel with old man and compelled him to stop at particular place. When auto was stopped he dragged the old man out indulged in quarrel and then after physically manhandling the old man pushed him into a ditch. Consequent to which, he suffered injuries and died.

Soon thereafter petitioner left the auto and boarded the passenger bus and tried to escape. The Complainant having witnessed the incident followed the bus and it is the Complainant who had intercepted the bus by obstructing its further movement. In this manner the bus was stopped and he managed to identify the petitioner. Thereafter he lodged a report.

From this it is clear that the, petitioner was arrested soon after he committed the crime when he was escaping. The Complainant's version describes the sequence of events, which includes snatching of money from the old money, identity of whom is not yet ascertained.

The learned Counsel for petitioner would submit that firstly identity of the deceased is not known and secondly the petitioner and the accused were strangers. Petitioner had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 5,000/- from his bank account on the date of incident and Rs. 25,000/- some time earlier. Therefore, seizure of Rs. 15,000/- from his person by the Police is fully accounted for. It is further urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. On this basis bail is sought.

From the facts referred to in para supra, it is evident that Complainant had identified the petitioner as he was passenger in his auto and it is he who compelled the petitioner to stop by pulling his color. Secondly, in the presence of the Complainant the petitioner has physically assaulted the victim. Thirdly, he left the place and boarded the bus which bus Complainant managed to intercept and stop. Therefore, the arrest of the petitioner is immediate or soon after the crime has been committed and it makes strong prima facie case against him.

The death is result of acts of the petitioner, therefore, I do not find at this juncture the case is made out to grant bail. The petition is rejected.

However, any observations made in the order is only on the basis of the grounds urged by the learned Counsel for petitioner and hence shall not be used by the prosecution against or by the accused in his favour.