IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4310/2018 BETWEEN:
Bharath Pradan S/o Bhimasen Pradan Aged about 22 years, R/at, No.9, Ramaswamy Reddy Building, Kachanayakanahalli, Hennagara gate, Jigani Hobli, Anekal – 562106. …Petitioner (By Sri Mohan Kumar D for Sri M Krishnegowda, Adv.) AND:
State by D.J.Halli Police High Court Govt. Pleader, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.67/2018 of Devarajeevana Halli Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence P/U/S 201 and 302 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail in Crime No.67/2018 of D.J.Halli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that though the alleged incident has taken place on 18.03.2018, but the case has been registered on 05.04.2018, hence, there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint and registration of the case. He further submitted that earlier the complaint was registered against unknown persons and subsequently during the course of investigation, accused persons have been apprehended. He further submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, the only one circumstance which has been noted as per the statement of Sri Jai Joseph is that he has lastly seen the accused persons at the place from where the deceased took them in his car. He further submitted that the said statement of Sri Jai Joseph is also not acceptable and reliable as the case has been registered on 05.04.2018. But the statement of the said witness has been recorded on 03.04.2018. He further submitted that no strong reasons have been stated to show that the accused person has involved in the case. He further submitted that the recovery of the car, mobile and other incriminating articles are only at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. He further submitted that no test identification parade has been conducted to identify the accused persons. He further submitted that the only allegation which has been made as against accused No.3 is that he was holding the deceased and at that time, accused No.2 has punched on his face and thereafter, accused No.3 was holding a screw driver to pierce his stomach, at that time accused No.1 covered his mouth with towel and made him to smother and thereby caused the death of the deceased. There is no specific overt acts in so far as accused No.3 is concerned and ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.3 on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that petitioner/accused, along with accused Nos.1 and 2, have taken the deceased for the purpose of robbery and have committed the murder and taken the car, mobile and the amount which was there with the deceased. He further submitted that subsequently, the voluntary statement of the accused has been recorded and in the voluntary statement, he has admitted the alleged incident. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.3 is from Orissa, if he is released on bail, he may not be available for trial. He further submitted that the entire charge sheet indicates the involvement of the petitioner/accused in the alleged crime. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which has been produced along with the petition.
6. A perusal of the records indicates that in so far as the statement of Sri Jai Joseph is concerned, there were three persons who came near the deceased and took the car in higher speed and the said statement has been recorded by the Police on 03.04.2018. But as could be seen from the complaint, the said complaint has been registered on 05.04.2018, but before registration of the case itself the statement of the said witness has been recorded. Under such circumstances, the last seen theory which is stated does not survive for consideration. Even though as could be seen from the charge sheet material, there is no specific overt acts stated as against the petitioner/accused No.3 is concerned, only he was holding the deceased and at that time, accused No.2 punched on his face, accused No.1 smothered with towel and as a result of the same, he died. Under the facts and circumstances, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. I am of the considered opinion that by imposing some stringent conditions, if petitioner/accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
7. In that light, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.3 is enlarged on bail in Crime No.67/2018 of D.J.Halli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner/accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
3. He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., to 5.00 p.m., till the charge sheet is filed.
4. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
Sd/- JUDGE GJM