Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Ganesh @ Ganesh Reddy And Others vs Rashekar

High Court Of Karnataka|12 July, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.2581/2019 BETWEEN:
1. Ganesh @ Ganesh Reddy, S/o. Late. Marappa, Aged about 27 years, R/at, Puolampalli village, Somenahalli Hobli, Gudibande Taluk, Chikkaballapura District-561 207.
2. Manjunatha @ Manju, S/o. Harish Kumar, Aged about 22 years, R/at Puolaumpalli village, Somenahalli Hobli, Gudibande Taluk, Chikkaballapura District-561 207.
... Petitioners (By Sri. K.A.Chandrashekar, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Devanahalli Police Station, Gowribidanur-560 110, Represented by S.P.P, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 001.
... Respondent (By Sri. K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.121/2018 (Spl.C.No.539/2018) of Devanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 397 of IPC and Section 3(2) (VA) of SC/ST (POA) Act and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Notice is served on the complainant.
2. The petitioners are seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with their detention pursuant to proceedings in Crime No.121/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 397 of IPC read with Section 3(2) (5-a) of SC and SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was filed on the basis of information that a dead body of a woman, who was not identified, was found. Subsequently, after registration of the case, investigation was commenced and on the basis of statement of father of the deceased, in which it was stated that vehicle of accused No.1 was being used by the deceased often in the course of her work and suspicion was expressed in that regard, in furtherance of the same, the petitioners were arrested. It is stated that during interrogation, voluntary statement of accused No.1 has been recorded, on the basis of such material, charge sheet has been filed. The case that is made out in the charge sheet makes out a case as against accused No.1 as regards the acts of slitting the neck of the deceased and strangulating her along with the veil (dupatta).
4. Taking note of the fact that proof of the offence is based on circumstantial evidence but noting that offence made out is grave in nature, no case is made out for enlarging accused No.1 on bail. Though, proof of the voluntary statement is a matter for trial, for the present purpose, note can be taken of the voluntary statement of accused No.1 in light of recovery pursuant to such statement. However, as regards accused No.2 is concerned, proof of offence as against accused No.2 is based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, accused No.2 is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. In the result, the bail petition filed by petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is rejected. The bail petition filed by petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is allowed. Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is enlarged on bail in Crime No.121/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 397 of IPC read with Section 3(2) (5-a) of SC and SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, petitioner No.2/accused No.2 to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature.
(vi) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by petitioner No.2/accused No.2, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE RB
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Ganesh @ Ganesh Reddy And Others vs Rashekar

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
12 July, 2019
Judges
  • S Sunil Dutt Yadav