IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1052 OF 2019 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.894 OF 2019 IN CRL.P.NO.1052/2019:
BETWEEN:
GANGAMMA W/O LATE VEERABHADRACHARI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KARADIHALLI VILLAGE KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 572 301. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY BANAKAL POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH .R. H., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.67/2018 OF BANAKAL POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P.NO.894/2019:
BETWEEN:
MANGALA @ MANGALA W/O THYAGARAJA CHAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT KARADIHALLI VILLAGE, KANAKATTE HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 572301 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY BANAKAL POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH .R. H., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.67/2018 (SC.NO.88/2018) OF BANAKAL POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Crl.P. No.1052/2019 has been filed by accused No.3, Crl.P. No.894/2019 has been filed by accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release them on bail respectively in Crime No.67/2018 of Banakal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that on 13.04.2018, the complainant was coming from Mangalore in an ambulance, he saw the dead body in the Charmudi Ghat at a depth level of 100 feet. When he saw the dead body, it was around the age of 50 to 55 years old and it was folded with the bed sheet. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offences. There is no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that only on the basis of voluntary statement of Accused No.1, the petitioners-accused No.2 and 3 have been arraigned as accused. It is further submitted that the prosecution has relied upon only on the last seen theory and seizure of the vehicle belonging to accused No.1. Even the last seen theory is also not accepted. In the statement of CW’s.7 and 8, it clearly shows that the deceased was in the habit of going out for a longer period and he was an alcoholic and not regularly coming to the house. He further submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are innocent and they have not committed any offences. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and further it is submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are ready to abide by the conditions imposed on them by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petitions and to release the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the statement of CW’s 7 and 8 are clearly goes to show that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are last seen persons along with the deceased by closing the shop while going to their residence. Thereafter, the deceased was not found. Subsequently, he was noticed dead with injuries in Charmudi Ghat. He further submitted that the conduct of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 being the daughter and wife was very strange, immediately after the incident, they have not filed any missing complaint, even though, the said person was missing from the house. It is further submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are involved in the serious offences. Hence, they are not entitled to be released on bail. On these grounds, she prays to dismiss the petitions.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. Admittedly, the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution is entirely relying upon the two sequences i.e. last seen theory and the recovery of vehicle which belongs to accused No.1. Even as could be seen from the statement of CW’s 7 and 8, who are last seen witnesses, at their statements itself, it clearely states that the deceased was in the habit of moving from one place to another. He was also addicted to alcohol and he never used to stay in the house. The said fact helped the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 in not filing the missing complaint or any other complaint. Even the last seen theory is also very vague type of evidence except that circumstance, no other circumstances are there. The records point out that already the charge sheet has been filed. the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are not required for further investigation and interrogation. Under the above said facts and circumstance, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In that light, petitions are allowed. the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.67/2018 of Banakal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
1. Each of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence either directly or indirectly.
3. They shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities till the trial is concluded.
4. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
5. Respondent-police is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail, if there is any interference by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 during the course of investigation.
KTY Sd/- JUDGE