IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6496/2017 BETWEEN:
BEEREGOWDA S/O KUSANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT GUJJEGOWDANAPURA VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-34 (BY SRI.PRATHEEP K C., ADV.) ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY H.D.KOTE POLICE STATION MYSORE DISTRICT REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01.
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.150/2016 OF H.D KOTE P.S., MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302,114 AND 341 R/W 34 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 No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 114, 341 read with 34 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.150/2016.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief as per the complaint averments that the father of the deceased lodged the complaint, wherein he has stated that the deceased was having illicit connection with the wife of accused No.1. Apart from that there was a financial transaction in between the deceased and accused No.1 and when the deceased asked for repayment of the amount that he has given to accused No.1, for that also accused No.1 was having grudge towards the deceased.
The further allegation the during the night on 27.06.2016 at about 10.30p.m. when the family members heard the screaming voice, they came out of the house and saw the accused person ran away from the said place. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered against six accused persons for the alleged offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, and other materials placed on record.
5. Perusing the statement of eye-witness i.e., Smt.Gouramma, the wife of the deceased, whose statement was recorded on 28.06.2016, wherein she has stated that at about 10.30p.m., she heard the screaming noise of her husband, immediately herself and the family members came out of the house and in the street light they have seen her husband was lying on the ground, accused No.1-Kenda was assaulting with machu on the neck portion of the deceased, Beeregowda i.e., the petitioner herein, was holding the club and he was also standing there, after seeing them, both of them ran away along with machu and club. The statement of one Meenakashamma was also recorded on 28.06.2016, she also deposed the same thing sofar as the petitioner is concerned, that petitioner was holding the club and he was also standing there, then after seeing them, both of them ran away.
6. Looking to the statement of the alleged eye- witnesses, they have not at all stated that they have seen any overt-act of the petitioner assaulting the deceased with club, the only statement made by them is that they have seen the petitioner standing at the spot and he was holding the club.
7. I have also perused the Post Mortem report.
The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, gave the opinion that the death is due to chop injuries sustained to the neck. Looking to these materials, I am of the opinion that, sofar the petitioner is concerned, there are no overt-act against him. But sofar as the submission made by the learned HCGP that the petitioner instigated the other accused persons to assault the deceased is concerned, it is a matter for trial. The petitioner has contended in the petition that he is innocent and not committed the alleged offence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that accused No.4 is granted with anticipatory bail. Hence, looking to these materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 114, 341 read with 34 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.150/2016, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one 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 BSR