IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9084/2017 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.9085/2017 IN CRL.P.NO.9084/2017 BETWEEN:
SMT PAVITHRA @ SANDHYA W/O JOHN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT No.113, C/O SREENIVASA ACHARYA BUILDING, UPAKAR LAYOUT ATTIBELE TOWN, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562107. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI LEELADHAR.H.P., ADV.) AND:
STATE BY HULIMAVU POLICE STATION, BANGALORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.) THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.203/2017 (C.C.NO.25245/2017) OF HULIMAVU P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P.NO.9085/2017 BETWEEN:
SMT SARASWATHI @ SARASA W/O LATE NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT No.24, AMBEDKAR COLONY 9TH CROSS, HOSANAGARA BANGALORE-560068. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI LEELADHAR.H.P., ADV.) AND:
STATE BY HULIMAVU POLICE STATION, BANGALORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.) THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CR.NO.203/2017 OF HULIMAVU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU AND IN C.C.NO.25245/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143 AND 302 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THESE CRL.Ps COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Since these two petitions are in respect of same crime number and common questions of facts and law are involved, both are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order, in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and law.
2. The first petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail and connected petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent/police to release the petitioners on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC registered in respondent/police station in Crime No.203/2017.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State in respect of both the petitions.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petitions, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record produced in the case.
5. The complainant is one Police Sub-inspector, Jigani Police station.
6. I have perused the contents of the said complaint, so also I have perused the entire materials produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners along with the petitions and also perused the charge sheet, materials made over by the learned counsel for the petitioners. No doubt, the investigation officer is said to have recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1 – Pavithra. The deceased in this case is one Venkoji Rao. Looking to the material even according to the prosecution, there are no direct witnesses to the incident. The case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. Earlier, the case was registered in UDR.No.22/2017 on 01.06.2017 but subsequently on the basis of voluntary statement of the accused No.1, the case came to be registered as against the present petitioners. During the course of hearing of the petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in respect of both the petitions that there is no recovery of any incriminating articles and no materials are produced by the prosecution to show that there is last seen theory of the prosecution that the deceased was last seen in the company of the petitioners herein. Hence, the material for the prosecution is mainly the voluntary statement of the accused No.1 – Pavithra. Looking to the voluntary statement, it is evident that, nothing has been discovered at the instance of the petitioners. Both the petitioners have contended in their respective bail petitions that they are innocent and not involved in committing the alleged offence and there is false implication of the petitioners.
7. No doubt, as per the post mortem report, the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased gave opinion that cause of death is drowning but the question is who made the deceased to fell into the water and whether the present petitioners are responsible. Therefore, it is a matter of trial and after recording the evidence in a full pledged trial is to be ascertained. As the investigation is completed, charge sheet is also filed and as the case rests on the circumstantial evidence, I am of the opinion that petitioners have made out a case to allow the petitions and release them on bail.
6. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed.
Petitioner/accused Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.203/2017, subject to the following conditions:
IN CRL.P.9084/2014:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one solvent 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.
IN CRL.P.9085/2014:
iv. Petitioner to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
v. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
vi. Petitioner to make herself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for.
vii. The petitioner to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.