IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. No. 7580/2019 BETWEEN BHARATH SHASHIDHAR MADIVALAR S/O SHASHIDHAR H MADIVALAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS PRIVATE COMPANY EMPLOYEE RESIDENT OF TAVAREKERE VILLAGE GOWDANAKERE HOBLI SIRA TALUK 572 137 TUMKUR DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. CHETAN, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY: TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION TUMKURU DISTRICT: 572 137 REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ROHITH B.J, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.62/2019 OF TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 307, 109, 504 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (A4) and the learned HCGP for the Respondent –State. Perused the records.
2. The respondent-Police have filed charge sheet against the petitioner (A1) and other three accused persons in CC No.1063/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 109, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC, which is now pending before the Court of II Addl. Sessions Judge at Tumakuru.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief as per the charge sheet papers is that, the complainant- Mahalingappa and his younger brother Murali were running a Petty Shop at Tavarekere Village in Sy. No.250/1. It is the further case of the prosecution that, on 21.06.2019 at about 7.30 p.m., two persons by name Vinayaka @ Chotu and Raghavendra @ Kapali, the residents of Tavarekere, came near the shop of the complainant-Mahalingappa. At that time, the complainant Mahalingappa was standing outside the shop and talking to one Yarrappa and Rajanna and his brother Murali was in the shop. The said Vinayaka came to the shop asked Murali for Cigarette. In turn, the said Murali asked Vinayaka to clear the old balance of Rs.70/-. In that context, the said Vinayaka @ Chotu and Raghavendra @ Kapali abused the said Murali in filthy language. Then the complainant pacified them. Again on the same day at about 8.00 p.m., the said Vinayaka and Raghavendra, came near their shop and abused the complainant and his brother in filthy language and assaulted the complainant with a chopper on his forehead and caused bleeding injury. Immediately his friends Yarrappa and Mahalingappa, who were with the complainant, came to his rescue. But, the said Raghavendra dragged out the said Murali from the shop and pushed him to the ground, then Raghavendra assaulted Murali with a chopper on his neck; When they screamed for help, the said Vinayaka and Raghavendra ran away from the spot. Due to the said assault, Murali, the brother of the complainant died at the spot.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner (A4) that, though the name of this petitioner (A4) was not mentioned in the FIR, but subsequently, during the course of investigation, his name has been surfaced, as an absentee abettor.
5. At this stage, it is not known about the conspiracy between Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and this Petitioner (A4) and the act of abetment by this petitioner and that has to be thrashed out during the course of full-dressed trial. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following,-
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner (A4)-Bharath Shashidhar Madivalar shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 62/2019 of respondent-Police Station for the aforesaid offences, now pending before the Court of II Addl. Sessions Judge at Tumakuru, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission, till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE KGR*