IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7179 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. DHARMENDRA SINGH, S/O HARBHAJAN SINGH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O SAKALAVARA VILLAGE, METRO CASTING YARD SHED, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-560 085.
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF OTTAVA VILLAGE & POST, DUMRANG STATION, BOXER DISTRICT, BIHAR – 800216.
2. APPU KUMAR, S/O HARIRAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O SAKALAVARA VILLAGE, METRO CASTING YARD SHED, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE-560 085.
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF OTTAVA VILLAGE & POST DUMRANG STATION BOXER DISTRICT BIHAR – 800216. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BANNERGHATTA P S., REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT PREMISES, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ROHITH B.J, HCGP) **** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.126/2018 REGISTERED BY BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners learned HCGP for the respondent – State.
2. Perused the records. The police have laid charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.126/2018, later the same has been registered in S.C. No.5043/2018 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Anekal. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3.
3. The brief facts as could be seen from the charge sheet are that the accused Nos.1 to 3 and the deceased Bola Kumar were working under CW.1 Dinesh Singh with reference to the metro work in Bengaluru. It is alleged that on 1.7.2018 in the evening at about 7 p.m. the accused and the deceased Bolakumar after completing their work came together to their shed situated at Metro Casting Yard and thereafter accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the deceased went for attending the second nature call. It is alleged that at that time they quarreled each other and accused No.1 stabbed the deceased with the knife on the neck and accused No.2 assaulted him with iron rod on his head and accused No.3 assaulted with the iron rod on the back of the said Bola Kumar. Due to which he sustained injuries and died. His dead body was found on the next day in the said place.
4. There are no eye witnesses to the incident.
The so called last seen witnesses who were also actually working with the accused and the deceased are residing in the same shed at Casting Yard. Their statements have been recorded after lapse of 8 days, wherein they have stated that on 1.7.2018 they have seen all the accused and the deceased going for the purpose of attending second nature call. Later the accused persons came back and Bola Kumar did not return. But there is no reason assigned in their statements as to why they were not examined by the police on the next day; as to why they did not go and inform the police though they were present when the dead body was found on that particular place. It is seen from the records that the accused persons were arrested on 7.7.2018. Perhaps on the basis of their voluntary statement the statement of the last seen witnesses must have been recorded. The statement of the last seen witnesses have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in order to prove the said facts. In the circumstantial evidence cases delay plays a dominant role.
5. Apart from the above, the police have also recovered some articles at the instance of the accused i.e., one knife, one iron rod and a club which were stained with blood. Their clothes were also recovered, but the mahazar does not show that the clothes were stained with blood. Therefore, the connectivity between the seized weapons and the clothes and the incident also has to be established during the course of full dressed trial. As the charge sheet has already been filed and the accused were arrested on 7.7.2018 and since then they have been in judicial custody, under the above facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail, particularly under Section 439 of IPC as the entire case would revolve around the circumstantial evidence. Hence the following order.
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.126/2018 of Bannerghatta Police Station (S.C. No.5043/2018 on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Anekal), registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall execute their personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE ykl