IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.1818/2019 BETWEEN:
Harish Kumar @ Harish Kashap, S/o.Late Rupesh Kumar, Aged about 25 years, R/at No.B2/65, B Block, Sevak Park, Uttamnagar, West Delhi-110059. … Petitioner (By Sri.Muzaffar Ahmed, Advocate) AND:
State by Whitefield P.S., Bengaluru, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri.K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.370/2018 of Whitefield Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence p/u/s 201 and 302 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention in Crime No.370/2018. A complaint came to be made as regards commission of offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
2. The petitioner has been arrested on 22.08.2018 and has been in custody since then.
3. The facts made out in the complaint are that one Vijayalaxmi was working in a Company having its office in ITPL, Whitefield. It is stated that Vijayalaxmi was found dead in her residence. It is the further case of prosecution that on the basis of information received by the owner of the premises where the deceased was tenant that a male person was there along with Vijayalakshmi on the same night and the owner has identified the said person to be Harish Kumar @ Harish Kashap and hence it is stated that the petitioner is involved in the commission of offences. The charge- sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the say of the prosecution that owner had given information to the brother of deceased that the petitioner was present along with Vijayalaxmi on the said night cannot be accepted in the light of the complaint of the owner which is found in the charge-sheet recorded on 19.08.2018. The complaint does not mention the name of the petitioner. There is contradiction between the version of the brother of the deceased and the owner. The petitioner further contends that statement of the Security Guard which is found in the charge-sheet recorded on 20.08.2018 also states that he has identified the person in the police station as the person who had accompanied Vijayalaxmi on the said date.
However, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the arrest memo records that the petitioner was arrested on 22.08.2018. Hence, prima-facie the statement of Security Guard cannot be accepted. Hence the question of security guard identifying the accused on 20-08-2018 doesnot arise. Various contentions are advanced regarding merits of the matter.
The question as to whether the person who accompanied the deceased on the said night was the petitioner, or not is a matter that is required to be proved in the trial.
5. Taking note of the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and also taking out of the fact that petitioner is not a local resident, apprehension of the prosecution that petitioner may tamper with the prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted. It is also the statement of the petitioner that there are no criminal antecedents and the said aspect has not been controverted. In the light of the fact that matter rests on circumstantial evidence, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is allowed, subject to following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with two local sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction before the Sessions Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate for disposal of the trial and attend the court regularly.
(iv) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in automatic cancellation of bail.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-