IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7997/2018 BETWEEN GURU MURTHY S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDENT AT KURIHATTI HULIYAR HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK-572218 TUMAKURU DISTRICT (BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA HULIYAR POLICE STATION CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKURU DIST-572218 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001 (BY SRI M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.149/2017 OF HULIYUR P.S., TUMKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., to release him on bail in Crime No.149/2017 of Huliyar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the deceased Gowramma is the sister of wife of the complainant. Gowramma had married one Vijayasarathi. By purchasing a house at Kurihatti in the name of the Gowramma, they were residing there since 15 years by doing coolie work for their livelihood. They were not having any children. The said house was having three portions and among them the complainant and his family were residing in one portion, deceased was residing in one portion and another portion was given to the accused/petitioner. The husband of the Gowaramma had died due to ill-health about 5 years back and Gowaramma alone was residing in her portion of the house and she was taking care of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner was addicted to bad voices and he used to quarrel with the deceased for money and he also used to assault her. It is further alleged that on 05.07.2017 at about 7.00 p.m., the said Gowramma had been to house of one Umesh to watch T.V., and at about 9.00 p.m., the accused came there and took the deceased to the house. On the same day at about 8.00 p.m. the complainant had been to marriage of one Revanna’s daughter to Kampanahalli and when he returned to the house at about 11.30 p.m., along with one Mallesh on a bike, he found the said Gowaramma lying there beside his house on the road. Immediately he called neighbours and he noticed scratch marks over neck and lips of Gowramma and suspected that the petitioner might have committed murder of deceased as she had not written the house in his name and she was not giving money for him, and lodged the complaint. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. Already charge-sheet has been filed and the only circumstance on which the prosecution intending to rely upon is that the accused took the deceased to the house at about 9.00 p.m., from the house of Umesh, except that no other material is there. He further submitted that if at all he has involved in the alleged incident he could have absconded. But as per the case of the prosecution the petitioner was present on the spot. He further submitted that the alleged motive is for partition and no partition has taken place. Under the said facts and circumstances, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner was addicted to the habit of consuming alcohol and he used to pick up quarrel with the deceased demanding money. He further submitted that there was animosity between the deceased and the accused. He further submitted that there are material to show that on the date of incident at about 9.00 p.m., the accused took the deceased from the house of Umesh and subsequently the deceased died an unnatural death. He further submitted that the entire material clearly points the guilty of the accused and no grounds have been made out by the petitioner to release him on bail. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the parties and also perused the records, including the contents of the complaint.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and charge-sheet material, the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. Already charge-sheet has been filed. Even as per the case of the prosecution, the accused took the deceased from the house of one Umesh at about 9.00 p.m., and the alleged incident has been noticed at 11.30 p.m. There is a big gap in between these two incidents. When there are no eyewitnesses and the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence, I feel by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, it would meet the ends of justice.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and accused- petitioner herein is enlarged on bail in Crime No.149/2017 of Huliyar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 506 of IPC., subject to the following conditions:-
i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii) He shall be regular in appearing before the trial Court as and when he is ordered to do so.
iii) He shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer once in every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till the trial is concluded.
iv) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly and he shall not threaten the complainant in any manner.
v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.
vi) In the event of tampering of the prosecution evidence by the accused, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail.
Sbs* Sd/- JUDGE