IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2050/2018 BETWEEN:
MANISH @ RAMESH S/O. TEJARAM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.12, 10TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK, T.C.PALYA, VARANASI MAIN ROAD, AKSHAYANAGARA, RAMAMURTHYNAGARA, BANGALORE-560016.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI M.SHARASS CHANDRA., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HIGH GROUND P.S., BANGALORE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.
(BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.154/2016 (S.C.NO.104/2017) OF HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No.154/2016 of High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 read with 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution is:-
As per the complaint averments the complainant has filed the complaint alleging that on 26.09.2016, he left the house at about 09:45 a.m. and his father later joined him in his shop around 10:00 a.m. Complainant’s elder daughter Minal is studying in 10th standard at St.Joseph’s School in Coles Park and younger daughter Prachi is studying in 6th standard at Francis X’avier School. Both of them went to school by 7.30 a.m. On that day, complainant’s mother Santhoshi Bai and his wife and his infant were there in the house. At about 12:15 p.m. on 29.06.2016, the complainant received a call on his mobile from his neighbour and he informed that some serious incident has taken place near his house and he was asked to come to the home immediately. At 12:30 p.m., the complainant came near his house and saw his younger daughter Prachi. Upon enquiry with her, she told that she came back from school at 11:45 a.m. when she came home, the outer door of the house was unlocked and upon entering the house, she saw her mother and grand mother lying in a pool of blood in the hall. She was scared and ran out of house and on seeing the police personnel standing near her house, she informed them as to what she saw in her house. In the meanwhile, the complainant’s father arrived near the house, they both entered the house and the complainant saw the dead body of his mother and wife and they also saw the cut injuries on the neck and face of the both the deceased. It is further stated in the complaint that inside his parent’s bedroom he saw two plastic boxes lying on the floor. Further he came to know that some persons have entered the house for robbing the gold articles and have committed the murder. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered against the petitioner.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and already charge sheet has been filed.
He further submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 have already been released on bail under the similar facts and circumstances, petitioner/accused No.1 is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. He further submitted that the CCTV footage cannot be looked into at this stage, when the alleged incident said to have been taken place, the persons who have entered the house of the complainant were wearing helmet and it is difficult to identify the face of those persons. Hence, on the basis of the CCTV footage alone the petitioner/accused No.1 cannot be connected to the present crime. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 is ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court and to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and release the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and contended that the accused-petitioner was acquainted with the complainant and in order to take undo advantage, the petitioner/accused No.1 came to the house of the complainant and committed the murder and snatched the gold ornaments. He further submitted that earlier to the incident, he used to come to the house of the complainant and used to take gold and pledged the same. The petitioner/accused No.1 knowing fully well that complainant will not be there in the house, at that time, petitioner/accused No.1 by taking undo advantage of the said aspect, he came to the complainant’s house and committed the murder of both the mother and wife of the complainant. He further submitted that the gold ornaments, other articles and blood stained clothes were seized at the instance of the petitioner and the postmortem report indicates that both the deceased had suffered 21 injuries. If the accused-petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond and may not be available for the trial and as petitioner/accused No.1 is a habitual offender, he may indulge in similar type of criminal activities. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and perused the records.
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. It is contented by the learned High Court Government Pleader that if CCTV footages shows the presence of petitioner/accused No.1 near the place of incident. It is further submitted that petitioner/accused No.1 was acquainted with the deceased and he has entered the house of the complainant and committed the alleged offence.
8. On going through all the materials, the first strong evidence which prosecution is intending to rely upon is CCTV footages. But it is the admitted fact that as on the date of alleged incident, the person who has entered the house of the complainant along with other two persons they were wearing a helmet. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to identify the face of the persons entered into the house of the complainant.
9. Be that as it may. As could be seen from the order dated 09.06.2017 in Crl.P.No.3139/2017, blood stained clothes, chopper and blood stained weapons were recovered at the instance of accused No.3. The charge sheet is filed and as there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Under such circumstances, I feel that if by imposing some stringent conditions, petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
10. In the light of the discussion made by me above, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner-accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in S.C.No.104/2017 (Crime No.154/2016 of High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru City), which is pending on the file of LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of IPC, subject to following conditions:-
1. The accused-petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
3. He shall be regular in attending the Court.
4. He shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities.
5. He shall mark his attendance on 1st of every month between 10.00 a.m., to 5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police station till the trial is concluded.
3. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission from the Jurisdictional Court.
SD/- JUDGE HJ