IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8810/2017 BETWEEN:
M SHARAVANA S/O MAHALINGAM AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT NO.07, 5TH CROSS SLV LAYOUT RAYASANDRA VILLAGE HOSQUR POST ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE CITY-560068 (BY SRI. R.V. RAJASHEKARA, ADV.,) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER BY MADIVALA TRAFFIC POLICE BANGALORE-560068 REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 (BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.,) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.111/2017 OF MADIVALA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279 AND 304(A) OF IPC AND SECTION 134(A AND B) R/W 187 OF INDIAN MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC and Section 134 (A and B) r/w 187 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 registered in respondent – police station Crime No.111/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are one Sreekanth Prasad is the complainant in this case and Jahir Hussain and Mohammed Fakruddin are the deceased. Looking to the complaint averments, it was alleged that on 14.10.2017 at about 12.30 p.m. it is stated by the complainant that it was the accident in between one Pulsar motorcycle on which both the deceased were traveling and the car which was driven by accused No.1 herein. It is stated in the compliant, because of the accident in between the two vehicles both the deceased sustained injuries and when the people gathered at the spot, fearing to the gathering the driver of the car ran away from the said place leaving the car at the spot. Accordingly, case came to be registered with the impression that it is purely the accident case. But subsequently that is after eight days, the police inserted the offence under Section 304 of IPC in the said case. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 herein, earlier on the basis of the FIR which came to be registered, he was released on bail but subsequently, after insertion the offence under Section 304 of IPC without following the procedure i.e. cancellation of the bail, he was taken to the custody directly. Hence, the counsel submitted by imposing reasonable condition, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
3. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has fairly submitted that, though it is a case of death of two persons but originally it is the case of accident even according to the case of the prosecution. The learned HCGP., also made the submission that there is no procedure followed to cancel the bail which was granted in favour of the present petitioner.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
6. Originally it is a case of accident.
Subsequently the alleged offence under Section 304 is also added in the case. The petitioner has contended in the petition that there is a false implication, he has not committed the alleged offences and he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Earlier he was on bail even as per the order of the Hon’ble Court. Even if it is presumed that there is alleged offence under Section 304 of IPC, it is not exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment. Hence, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be enlarged on bail 7. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC and Section 134 (A and B) r/w 187 of MV Act registered in respondent – police station Crime No.111/2017 subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for `50,000/- with 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 has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE BS