Merely Because There Is Delay In Recording Statement Of Witnesses, It Is Not A Ground For Grant Of Bail: Karnataka HC In Conspiracy Case
|The Karnataka High Court in a conspiracy case, has held that merely because there is a delay in recording the statement of witnesses, it is not a ground for grant of bail.
The appellant/accused in this case, had filed an appeal seeking to set aside the order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge rejecting the bail petition of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 109, and 120-B read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act’).
A Single Bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar observed, “Merely because there is delay in recording the statement of C.W.14 and C.W.16 is not a ground for grant of bail. There is recovery of knife and jerkin at the instance of the appellant – accused No. 3 which on examination are found to be stained with human blood. CCTV footage collected by the Investigating Officer will reveal the movement of appellant – accused No. 3 and another on motorcycle in the area of the incident.”
Advocate Lakshmikanth K appeared on behalf of the appellant while HCGP Rangaswamy R appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Factual Background -
The case of the prosecution was that the deceased had illicit relationship with fourth accused since 2015 and in 2021, the fourth accused had illicit relationship with first accused. When the deceased came to know about it, he made galata with accused persons and assaulted fourth accused due to which accused Nos. 1 to 5 conspired to kill the deceased. Accused Nos. 1 and 4 gave supari to accused Nos. 2 and 3 in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and gave advance of Rs. 10,000/-. Accused No. 1 gave motorcycle to accused Nos. 2 and 3 to commit the offence and as per the accused No.1, accused Nos. 2 and 3 changed the number plate of the said vehicle.
The accused No. 2 contacted remaining accused persons in mobile phone through WhatsApp and accused No.1 gave information to accused Nos.2 and 3. Accused No.2 was riding the bike and accused No.3 was a pillion rider and at about 6.45 a.m., they followed the car driven by the deceased from his house and they in the guise of asking address, stopped the deceased and restrained him. The appellant i.e., accused no. 3 stabbed him with knife on the chest, neck and back and caused bleeding injuries. The deceased was shifted to hospital but he died. A case was filed and the appellant was arrested and was in judicial custody. He approached the Trial Court seeking bail and the same was rejected which was challenged in the appeal before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “C.W.13 is the mother of the deceased who in her statement has stated that two persons came near her son when he was in the car and one person stabbed her son with a weapon. C.W.14 and C.W.16 are eye witnesses to the incident. C.W.14 has also stated in his statement about two persons coming near the car of the deceased and one person assaulting the deceased with a knife. C.W.16 in his statement has stated that he has seen two persons coming near the deceased and one person assaulting the deceased with knife on his chest and other parts. He has identified the said person who assaulted the deceased with knife as appellant – accused No. 3 when he was shown in the Police Station.”
The Court further said that charge sheet material shows prima facie case against the appellant – accused No. 3 for offences alleged against him. The Court said that considering all these aspects, the Trial Court rightly rejected the bail petition and that there are no grounds made out for setting aside the said order and grant bail to the appellant.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title- Dinesh S. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023:KHC:36067)