1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4089/2022

BETWEEN:

MR. RAMASHETTY PAVAN KUMAR

@ PAVAN @ PRUTHVI,

S/O CHINNA ANJI,

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

R/O ANNAVARAM VILLAGE,

JALADINKE MANDALAM,

KAVALAI TALUKA, NELLORE DISTRICT,

ANDHRA PRADESH-524201.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REP BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

CHIKKABALLAPRUA TOWN POLICE STATION,

CHIKKABALLAPURA.

TALUKA AND DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA,

REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENGALURU-560001.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF

CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN

CR.NO.83/2021

OF

CHICKBALLAPURA

TOWN

P.S.,

CHICKBALLAPURA

FOR

THE

OFFENCE

PUNISHABLE

UNDER

SECTIONS 120B, 302, 114, 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF

THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

CHIKKABALLAPURA.

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking

regular

bail

of

the

petitioner

in

Crime

No.83/2021

of

Chickballapura Town Police Station, Chickballapura, for the

offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 114 read with 34

of IPC.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State.

3.

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that accused No.1 is the son of the deceased and accused No.2

is the friend of accused No.1. The motive for committing the

murder is in respect of the property. Accused Nos.3 to 5 are

engaged by accused No.2 since accused No.1 gave supari to

accused No.2. That on 15.10.2021 at 8.30 p.m., accused Nos.2

to 5 were watching near the house of the victim and accused

Nos.3 and 4 went inside the house of the victim and committed

the murder and immediately accused Nos.3 and 4 were caught

hold of by the general public at the spot. The case of the

3

prosecution is that all of them stayed together in a lodge before

committing the murder and thereafter, the accused persons

were apprehended and case is registered and matter is

investigated and charge-sheet is filed.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner is accused No.5. The learned counsel submits

that the only case against this petitioner is that he was watching

outside the house of the victim and no overt-act allegation is

made against this petitioner and the prosecution is only relying

upon the statement of the lodge boy, but he identified only

accused Nos.3 and 4 and not identified this petitioner. Only on

suspicion, this petitioner has been implicated in the case. The

learned counsel submits that no recovery is made at the instance

of the petitioner and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

5.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that this

petitioner and accused No.2 are the friends and accused No.2

knows accused No.3 and accused No.2 gave suprari to accused

Nos.3 to 5. The learned counsel submits that CDR collected by

the Investigating Officer discloses from 01.10.2021, but the

4

incident of murder was committed on 15.10.2021. The learned

counsel submits that this petitioner was using two mobile phones

and he was in constant touch with accused Nos.2 to 4. Both the

SIMS are seized at the instance of the petitioner herein. The

learned counsel submits that all of them stayed together in a

lodge and when accused Nos.3 and 4 were caught hold of by

general public at the spot, accused No.5 made a phone call to

accused No.4 by using his mobile No.96183 85966 and he spoke

with him for about 101 seconds, 194 seconds, 246 seconds and

64 seconds. The tower location is