IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7493/2017 BETWEEN:
Arjun Chouhan Aged about 24 years S/o Surju Chouhan Surubengra Grama Udulgaudi District Assam – 784 509 ... Petitioner (By Sri Raghunath Reddy R, Advocate) AND:
State by the Station House Officer Madanayakanahalli Police Station Bengaluru City Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka ... Respondent (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.124/2016 of Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
This criminal petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.124/2016.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also produced the statements of Harilal Chouhan, dated 03.03.2016, Lakky Chand Chouhan, dated 03.03.2016 so also he has produced the copy of the voluntary statement of the accused person. Looking to the statement of these two witnesses who were with the deceased and thereafterwards left for their village for the festival, in their statement, they have stated at the end of the statement “he is not having any suspicion against anybody”. So also the statement of another witness Lakky Chand Chouhan, who is CW-12 that “he is not having any sort of suspicion against anybody in the incident”.
5. Therefore, even according to the prosecution case, there are no direct witnesses to the incident. Case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution relied upon the voluntary statement of accused person.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments, submitted that petitioner had absconded for a period of more than one year and at his instance, an Iron Rod and Suitcase have been recovered. Only on the basis of these two materials, at this stage, in the absence of any direct material, it is difficult for the court to hold that there is prima-facie case. Petitioner contended that he is innocent and not involved in committing the alleged offence. Whatever he has narrated in the voluntary statement except regarding recovery of suitcase and iron rod, rest of the things are not admissible. He has further contended that he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that even the statement of these three witnesses were not recorded at the earliest point of time. There is delay of three days in recording the statement of these three witnesses.
7. Considering all these aspects and also considering the custody of the petitioner from the date of his arrest, it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner/accused.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC registered in Crime No.124/2016, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE KMV*