IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.9085/2018 Between:
Beerendra manji, S/o Buchali Manji, Aged about 36 years, R/at Chandapura, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District – 560 099 … Petitioner (By Sri Pramod M., Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka by Suryanagara Police Station, Bengaluru District, Represented by Government Pleader, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 106. … Respondent (By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.351/2017 (S.C. No.5038/2018) of Suryanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence p/u/s 302 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.351/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant was working as a Manager in Vaishali Groups Cement Bricks Factory. It is stated that they were about nine employees from Bihar and the deceased was also working as an employee in the said factory. On 19.10.2017, it is stated that the complainant and Mestri Krishna were enquring with respect to the labourers. It was stated that Ranjit Manji was sleeping in the shed as he was not keeping well and that the petitioner is stated to have gone to the rest room, but did not return. When the complainant went to the labour shed, he found that the petitioner was not there and when he went to the room of Ranjit Manji, he saw the petitioner assaulting Ranjit Manji with hammer. It is stated that the deceased succumbed to injuries and died. The FIR was lodged and investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. However, it is stated that the trial has not yet commenced.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State opposes grant of bail and contends that as the petitioner is from Bihar, securing his presence during trial is difficult and there is possibility of petitioner absconding. It is to be noted that the petitioner is in custody from 23.10.2017.
4. It is stated that proof of the offence is a matter for trial and that the proceedings relating to grant of bail cannot be construed to be punitive in nature. It is contended that none have seen the commission of the offence and the case rests on circumstantial evidence and there has been no recovery at the instance of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the sole bread winner and has young children who need to be taken care of.
5. It is to be noted that the motive is allegedly the harassment of the petitioner by the deceased as per the case of the prosecution itself. It is also to stated that the Mestri had counseled the deceased in that regard.
6. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 23.10.2017 and trial has not yet commenced and also observing that proof of evidence is a matter for trial and that the present proceedings cannot be construed to be punitive in nature, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.351/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one local solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) The petitioner shall physically present himself and mark his attendance before the concerned Station House Officer once in a month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till conclusion of trial.
(v) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature.
(vi) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(vii) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR