IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6791/2018 BETWEEN:
1. MAHADEVASWAMY @ TOWER MAHADEVASWAMY S/O. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NITRE VILLAGE GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313 2. RAMU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O. MARIKANTASHETTY R/AT NITRE VILLAGE GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.N.RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TEREKANAMBI POLICE CHAMARAJANAGAR REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN SPL.CASE NO.87/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 114 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3(2)(v)(a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to release them on bail in Crime No.30/2018 of Terakanambi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V)(a) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Puttaswamy was the brother-in-law of accused No.4. Accused No.1 (petitioner No.1 herein) and accused No.4 had illicit relationship with each other and that was objected by the deceased. Therefore, petitioner No.1 and accused No.4 conspired to commit the murder of Puttaswamy and in execution of such conspiracy, accused No.1 engaged accused Nos.2 and 3 for the said purpose. On 04.02.2018 at 20.00 hours, accused Nos.1 to 3 committed murder of Puttaswamy by assaulting him with hammer on his head. Thereafter, they burnt the dead body by pouring petrol. By noticing the same, CW.1 has lodged a complaint on the next day of the alleged incident i.e. on 05.02.2018.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
4. Though the notice has been served on CW-8 Dasaiah, father of the deceased through the Investigating Officer as per the order of this Court dated 20.12.2018, he has remained absent.
5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The only two circumstances on which the prosecution relied upon are last seen theory as per the statement of CW.13 and recovery of weapons and the purse from the house of the accused. He further submitted that initially the case was registered against an unknown person and the charge sheet has been filed. Accused No.4 has been released on bail by this Court on 04.12.2018. On the ground of parity, the petitioners are also entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that there are no serious allegations against the petitioners. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioners on bail.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that though the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence, there is recovery of hammer, purse and motor cycle at the instance of the accused persons. The post mortem report clearly goes to show that the deceased succumbed to the grievous injuries. He has further submitted that there is a prima facie material as against the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
8. Admittedly, the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. It is alleged in the charge sheet that after making the deceased to consume alcohol, accused No.2 assaulted the deceased Puttaswamy with hammer on his head two times. Further, accused No.1 after collecting hammer from accused No.2, also assaulted on head forcibly. As a result of the same, he died and thereafter, they have taken out the petrol and poured the same over the dead body and set fire. All these aspects to be considered only at the time of trial. The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence, that too only on the last seen theory and recovery of weapons. Since accused No.4 has already been released on bail, I feel it just and proper that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail by imposing some stringent conditions, it would meet the ends of justice.
In that light, the petition is allowed. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 are ordered to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:-
i) Each of the petitioners 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) They shall appear before the trial Court as and when required iii) .They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
iv) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.
v) They shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities.
Sd/- JUDGE LB