IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6323/2017 BETWEEN:
1. DAYANANDA S/O RANGAIAH, AGE 30 YEARS, 2. PARAMESH @ PARAMESHWARAIAHA, S/O RANGARAMAIAH, AGED 37 YEARS, 3. KUMARAIAH S/O GANGANNA, AGE 38 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF DAVANAD HOSAHALLI, HANDANKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572119.
(BY SRI S.T. BIKKANNAVAR, ADV.,) ... PETITIONERS AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HANDANAKERE POLICE – 572119.
REPTED. BY HIGH COURT GOVT.PLEADER, S.P.P, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.55/2016 (S.C.NO.10025/2017) OF HANDANAKERE POLICE STATION, TUMKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201 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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.55/2016. After completing investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that the mother of the deceased is the complainant wherein she has stated that on the previous night petitioner No.2/accused No.2 came to the house of the complainant and took the deceased in his car and there afterwards he has not come back. Later, the complainant came to know through CW2 that there is one car which met with an accident on the way and there was one person whose dead body was inside the car. There afterwards, the complainant and others went to the spot. On the basis of the complaint, firstly case came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. Later on, after filing the charge sheet, it was a case of murder under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 made submission that looking into entire averments and material, it will not make out the case of murder but on the contrary, it goes to show that it was an accident of motor vehicle. He also made submission that there are no eye witness to the incident and case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The learned counsel also submitted that now the investigation is complete and charge sheet is also filed. He also drew the attention to the postmortem report and the cause of death. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made submission that looking into prosecution material and the contents of the complaint, it could be seen that petitioner No.2/accused No.2 took the deceased in his car and even if it is assumed for the sake of appreciation of the case the petitioner No.2/accused No.2 has not at all lodged the complaint regarding the alleged incident of accident. The learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that there is the statement of CW2-Krishnappa regarding last seen theory that he has seen the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 quarreling with the deceased. He has also submitted that there is voluntary statement recorded and the recovery of incriminating articles. Hence, he submitted that petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, entire charge sheet and other materials placed on record.
7. Even looking into the spot mahazar also it is stated that nearby the place of the accident there is a electrical cement pole, the car dashed to the said pole and spot mahazar was conducted on the next day of the accident. I have also perused the report of the Doctor who conducted the Post Mortem of dead body of the deceased and gave opinion that it was due to shock and heamorrhage as a result of injuries sustained and deceased had consumed alcohol at the time of death. Looking into these material on record, it is no doubt true that statement of witness regarding last seen theory that itself is not sufficient to assume that there was a murder however, it is a matter for trial. Looking to the material prima facie and FIR registered for the offence of causing of accident of motor vehicle and causing the death of the deceased, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC registered in Crime No.55/2016 subject to the following conditions:
i. Each of the 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. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE UN