IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.1966/2019 BETWEEN:
1. Mr.Afsar @ Murgesh, S/o.Davalath, Aged about 33 years, R/at 18, 1st Cross, Srinivasa Nagar, Guru Kulu College Stop, Dodha Golarahatti, Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru-560 079.
2. Mr.Harisudhan @ Harish, S/o.Yellappa, Aged about 28 years, R/at No.227, Near Suresh Garage, Sri Ramanagar, Urigam Post, K.G.F.Taluk, Kolar District-563 120.
3. Mr.Lurdha Lines @ Lines, S/o. Late Selva Raja, Aged about 27 years, R/at Pappanna Compound, Sri Ramanagar, Urigam Post, K.G.F.Taluk, Kolar District-563 120. ... Petitioners (By Sri.D.S.Venkataramanappa, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By its Inspector, Byatarayanapura Police Station, Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, At Bengaluru-560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri.K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Cr.No.519/2018 of Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence p/u/s 302, 120(B) r/w Section 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The learned counsel for petitioners has filed a memo seeking to withdraw the petition insofar as petitioner no.1 is concerned. Hence, the petition has been considered only in respect of accused nos.2 and 3, who are petitioner nos.2 and 3 in this petition.
2. Petitioners have sought for being released on bail with respect to detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.519/2018 registered by Byatarayanapura P.S., for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B and Section 149 IPC. Petitioner nos.2 and 3 have been in judicial custody since 07.12.2018.
3. The relevant facts are that on 22.11.2018, around 12.45 p.m., it is stated that the deceased was murdered in the house of the complainant. A complaint was lodged against one Murugesh @ Afsar. A bare perusal of the complaint would reveal that only the name of accused no.1 has been mentioned. It is further stated that there was previous enmity between accused no.1 and the deceased.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that in the light of previous enmity, the offence is stated to have been committed by the accused. It is to be noticed that petitioners had sought for being enlarged on bail before the Sessions Judge and the said application has been rejected by the order dated 01.03.2019. The learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the application has observed that investigation is not yet complete and hence it would not be appropriate to consider the request of the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for petitioners further submits that the investigation has now been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. It is also submitted that there are no eyewitnesses to the commission of offence. The witnesses including CW.2 and CW.3 are said to be neighbours. CW.2 and CW.3 have given statements stating that they had saw the accused No.1 entering the house along with two others. However, there is no identification as such with respect to two others.Hence, the question as to whether other two persons are petitioner nos.2 and 3, is a matter to be proved during trial. It is to be noticed that petitioner nos.2 and 3 are in custody from 07.12.2018.
6. Considering the fact that investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed and also taking note of the fact that accused no.1 is still in custody, it would be appropriate to consider the case of the petitioner nos.2 and 3 for being enlarged on bail. It is noticed that motive made out is only with regard to accused no.1, as it comes out from the complaint. Taking note of the fact that there are no eyewitnesses as such, and namely, the case of prosecution rests heavily on circumstantial evidence, the matter as to whether petitioner nos.2 and 3 were also present at the time of incident is a matter for trial. The apprehension that accused would threaten the witnesses could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions.
7. Accordingly, the bail petition filed by the petitioner nos.2 and 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is allowed, subject to following conditions:
(i) Petitioner nos.2 and 3 shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety for the likesum before the concerned court.
(ii) Petitioner nos.2 and 3 shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
(iii) Petitioner nos.2 and 3 shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) Petitioner nos.2 and 3 shall co-operate for disposal of the trial and attend the court regularly.
(v) Petitioner nos.2 and 3 shall not enter the locality where CW.2 and CW.3 reside.
‘ (vi) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the nos.2 and 3, shall result in automatic cancellation of bail.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-