IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5780/2019 Between:
Muniraju S/o. Nagaraju Aged about 38 years R/a Jayadeva Ramanagar Hulimangala Post Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk Bangalore – 560 015. … Petitioner (By Sri P.R. Bhat, Advocate for Sri Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira - Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka By Electronic City Police Station Represented by The State Public Prosecutor Bengaluru-560 001. …Respondent (Sri M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.236/2017 of Electronic City Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail in Crime No.236/2017 (SC No.165/2018 on the file VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru) of Electronic City Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the deceased was a JCB driver working under accused. According to the prosecution, on 17.08.2017 at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased left the house with accused and thereafter he was not to be seen. His dead body was traced in a vacant shed at Bingipura Road, on 18.08.2017 at about 7.00 p.m. by the brother of the deceased. Investigation was taken up and the petitioner/accused herein was arrested on 27.08.2017. In the course of investigation CW-19 was examined and according to him, on 17.08.2017, he dropped accused and the deceased near the aforesaid shed with injuries. On the basis of this complaint, the said case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel that earlier the petitioner has approached his Court in Criminal Petition No.3081/2018 and subsequently in Criminal Petition No.590/2019 and both the cases came to be dismissed. But however, now all the material witnesses have been examined before the Court below and none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. Under the said changed circumstances, he is moving this bail application. It is his further submission that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that he is also suffering with high diabetes and it is very difficult for him to lead his life in the jail atmosphere. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and release the petitioner/accused on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that earlier the petitioner/accused has approached this Court twice regarding bail and both the petitions came to be dismissed. He further submitted that there are witnesses who have seen the deceased going along with the petitioner/accused. He further submitted that the entire case of the prosecution, if it looked into there is prima-facie material to connect the accused to the alleged crime. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. Even the petitioner/accused has produced the evidence recorded by the trial Court in respect of the material witnesses from PWs.1 to 15, on going through the said records, it discloses that none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile. The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and there is no link in the chain of event. Then under such circumstances, benefit should be given to the accused. In view of the discussion held by me above, I am of the considered opinion that there is no necessity to keep the accused in custody and languish in jail. Hence, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail in Crime No.236/2017 (SC No.165/2018 on the file VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru) of Electronic City Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not tamper with the remaining prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
3. He shall be regular in attending the trial till trial is concluded.
4. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
5. He shall mark his attendance once in a month on every 1st before the jurisdictional police till the trial is concluded.
6. If he jumps the trial at any time, the trial Court is at liberty to take him to the custody till the trial is concluded.
nms Sd/-
JUDGE