Sri. Krishnegowda vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana

Petitioner has been arraigned as accused No. 5 in C.C. No. 21982/2012 on the file of VII ACMM, Bangalore registered for the offences punishable u/s 114, 394, 396, 302 and 411 R/w Section 34 and 35 of IPC. According to the case of the prosecution, there was an incident of robbery/decoity in the factory premises of M/s. Almighty Ring Forgings Pvt. Ltd., owned by CW.1 - B.M. Thippeswamy and others in the intervening night of 19/20.7.2012, and in the process of committing acts of robbery/decoity, the assailants murdered one Krishnappa, the security guard on duty at the factory premises by pushing him into the near by pit and dropping size stone on his head. The incident came to light, when CW-1 came near the factory in the morning of 20.07.2010. Immediately CW.1 lodged a report, based on which the police registered the case in Cr. No. 498/2012 for the offences punishable u/s 394 and 302 of IPC against un-known persons and took up investigation. During the investigation it was revealed that, in the incident iron pieces, forged items and other spare parts had been stolen from the factory premises, and the value of the stolen articles was to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Investigation revealed that, the accused No. 1 - Ajay Dubey and accused No. 2 were former employees of the said factory and they had been removed from the work and in that background accused Nos. 1 and 2 at instance of the accused No. 4 -P. Thangaraj, along with accused No. 3 went near the factory in the goods tempo owned and driven by the petitioner in the night of 19.07.2012 and after committing murder of the security guard, who tried to prevent the acts of robbery, by breaking open the locks of the doors of the factory premises, accused Nos. 1 to 3 gained entry into the factory, went inside and committed theft of iron pieces, forged items and other spare parts, loaded them into the goods van driven by the petitioner and then took them to the shop of accused No. 4 and sold them for Rs. 42,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was given to this petitioner. During the investigation, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were apprehended and their statements disclosed the complicity of this petitioner in the incident as the owner and driver of the goods tempo used for the commission of the offences. Therefore, the petitioner was apprehended and at his instance cash of Rs. 750/- and the tempo was seized. Thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to the judicial custody. Application filed by him for grant of bail came to be rejected by Learned Session Judge. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. In the meanwhile, on completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed and the matter has been committed to the Court of Sessions and is pending in S.C. No. 1532/2012 before Fast Tract Court No. IV, Bangalore City.

The petition is opposed by respondent-State.

I have heard both the sides and perused the records and copies of charge sheet papers made available.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and that, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that this petitioner was involved in the commission of offences and on the other hand, materials only indicate that the petitioner as driver of the tempo, went along with accused Nos. 1 to 3 as directed and then drove the vehicle to the shop of accused No. 4 and therefore there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of any of the offences alleged. It is further contended that, as the accused No. 4 has already been granted bail by this Court, the petitioner is also entitled for the relief of bail.

Per contra, the learned government pleader opposed grant of bail contending that, since earlier bail petition filed came to be rejected by this Court this successive bail petition after filing of charge sheet, on the same set of facts is not maintainable. He further contends that, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner by sharing common intention with other accused, took accused Nos. 1 to 3 near the factory in his goods vehicle and from there he transported the stolen goods to the shop of accused No. 4 and in the process, the security guard was murdered, as such, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is also guilty of offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, as such he is not entitled for bail.

The materials on record produced along with charge sheet prima facie indicate that, in the intervening night of 19/20.07.2012 there was an incident of robbery/decoity in the factory premises of CW-1 and the Security guard on duty at that time was murdered. The materials further prima facie indicate that, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 came near the factory premises in the goods vehicle owned and driven by this petitioner and the stolen goods were transported in the goods vehicle owned and driven by this petitioner. Prima facie, the conduct on the part of this petitioner in not reporting the incident to the law enforcing authority would indicate that, the petitioner had shared common intention with the accused Nos. 1 to 3. Therefore at this stage there are reasonable grounds to believe that, the petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged in the charge sheet. No doubt, accused No. 4 was granted bail by this Court. However, the petitioner does not stand on par with the accused No. 4. Even according to the case of the prosecution, accused No. 4 alleged to have instigated accused Nos. 1 to 3 to get iron pieces for money. Even according to the case of the prosecution accused No. 4 was not present at the scene of occurrence. However, the materials on record, prima facie indicates that, the petitioner was very much present at the scene of occurrence and stolen articles from the factory premises were transported in his goods vehicle. Therefore, the principle of parity is not applicable. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offences, as well as punishment prescribed for the offences, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of bail.

Accordingly, petition is rejected.