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.5852 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
ERABHADRA @ POORNAMI S/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKURU, GOLLARAHATTI KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 125. (NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) (BY SHRI. RAVINDRA B. DESHPANDE, ADV.) AND:
... PETITIONER THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAVAGAL POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 125.
(REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001.
(BY SHRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.) ...RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITONER, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO. 81/2017 OF JAVAGAL P.S., HASSAN DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 201 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This is a petition filed by the petitioner - accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC registered in respondent – police station as Crime No.81/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that, complainant’s younger uncle Vijayendra was married to one Jayaratna and they had no issues. From the past 8 to 9 years, Jayaratna had left Vijayendra and was staying at Avinahalli, Sagar Taluk. Whereas Vijayendra was staying at Javagal and was plying the Maxicab vehicle which belonged to one Nagaraju of Javagal from the past 9 years. When the complainant was in his native place, on 18.05.2017, at about 5.00 p.m., he had received a phone call from his father who had gone to Holenarasipura telling that somebody for some reason, had killed Vijayendra. On that basis, a complaint came to be registered against unknown persons and during the course of investigation, the present petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.1.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner – Accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, so also the charge sheet material, and other materials produced along with the petition. Even according to the case of the prosecution, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident, but the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence.
5. Looking to the averments made in the complaint, it is seen that one Manju who is the S/o. Nagaraju, the owner of Maxicab vehicle which the deceased was plying, is said to have informed the complainant about the dead body of Vijayendra lying in the drain. His statement was also recorded at the time of inquest mahazar proceedings. At that time, he has not at all stated that he had seen the quarrel between the deceased and the present petitioner on 17.05.2017, that is, earlier to the incident. But subsequently when the statement of said Manju was recorded, he has spoken about the said quarrel and also the last seen theory of the deceased with the present petitioner. Therefore, in this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if really he had seen both of them, then at the time of inquest mahazar proceedings, said Manju could have stated the same, which he has not done. As submitted by the learned HCGP, as per the voluntary statement of the present petitioner, the blood-stained clothes and other materials were seized, in the presence of panch witnesses.
6. Learned HCGP also made a submission that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the present petitioner in connection with the amount collected of plying the vehicle which the present petitioner was not giving to the owner Nagaraju and the deceased had complained in that regard as against the present petitioner. This is the motive according to the prosecution.
7. But however, there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and the case is on circumstantial evidence, only on the basis of the alleged recovery which cannot be said at this stage that he is not entitled to be granted with bail. Accused No.2 has already been granted bail. Investigation is already completed. Charge-sheet is also filed. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner - Accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.81/2017 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one 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 KS