IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6004/2017 BETWEEN:
Dharanendra K.L. S/o Lakkegowda Aged about 20 years R/at Kesthurkoppal Village K.R. Nagar Taluk Mysuru District-570 028. ... PETITIONER (By Sri C M Jagadeesh, Adv.) AND:
State by Station House Officer K.R. Nagar Police Mysuru District Represented by Public Prosecutor State of Karnataka High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.65/2017 of K.R.Nagar P.S., Mysuru District, for the offences P/U/Ss 302, 364 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. However, after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act registered in respondent – police station Crime No.65/2017.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the complaint averments are, the mother of the deceased is the complainant. It is stated that the deceased Raju was working in the hotel of one Ramu as a cleaner and cook. He used to come to the house to take bath. On 30.1.2017 at 8.00 a.m. the deceased had came to the house. But in the night he did not come. On 31.1.2017 in the morning at 10.30 a.m. one Ashok.B, S/o Basave Gowda came to the house of complainant and informed that the dead body of the deceased is lying in the land of one Krishnegowda by the side of Chamaraja tank bund. Immediately, the complainant and other family members rushed to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased. There were injuries on the neck, on both the knees, hips, back and right hand of the deceased. There were also scratches on the body which showed that the body was dragged to some distance. On the basis of the said complaint, initially, case was registered against unknown persons for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Thereafter, on 5.2.2017 the petitioner and accused No.1 came to be arrested, their voluntary statements came to be recorded and inquest mahazar proceedings were conducted. During the said period C.W.5 one Ramu was also present.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 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 and also the entire charge sheet material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the petition.
5. As per the case of the prosecution, the motive for the alleged incident is, during the night of 30.1.2017 the petitioner along with accused No.1 went to the said hotel where the deceased was working. As the food was not immediately supplied they picked up quarrel with the manager of the hotel. At that time, deceased intervened and tried to pacify the quarrel. Because of that reason, petitioner as well as accused No.1 were having enmity towards the deceased and challenged him that they will see him after he comes outside the hotel. The prosecution material also shows that the petitioner and accused No.1 took the deceased on their motorbike and in this regard the prosecution has relied upon the statement of C.W.5 Ramu and one Usha regarding the last seen theory. C.W.5 Ramu is also witness to the inquest mahazar proceedings, which was conducted earlier to recording of his statement. During inquest mahazar proceedings the said Ramu has not disclosed anything about the motive and the quarrel took place in the hotel during night of 30.1.2017. It is only on 4.2.2017 when the statement of C.Ws.5 and 6 were recorded, they has disclosed about the said quarrel.
6. Admittedly, there is five days delay in recording the statement of these two witnesses and there are no eyewitnesses to the actual incident of assault by the petitioner and accused No.1. The petitioner has contended in the petition that he is innocent and not committed the alleged offences and he has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 364 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act registered in respondent – police station Crime No.65/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one solvent 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 shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp