IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.527 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
PRADEEP @ SANTHOSHA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT: GOWRAMMANAVARA MANE VEERENAHALLI VIRGONAGAR POST BANGALORE – 560 045 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI M. KRISHNEGOWDA, ADOVCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY RAMAMURTHYNAGAR PS HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C. NO.589/2017 (CRIME NO.561/2016 OF RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE) ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 302, 396 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The present petitioner is accused No.2 in respondent- Station in Crime No.561/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 302 and 396 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
2. It is alleged in the FIR that on the night of 05.09.2016 at about 9.30 p.m., the accused joined by other four persons, robbed one Sri Suresh with a sum of `1,300/- of cash and his cell phone and killed him. It is alleged in the charge sheet that in the said process, the present petitioner had assaulted the deceased Suresh with his legs.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that admittedly neither in the FIR nor in the charge sheet, there is any alleged overt act against the present petitioner. He further submits that it is only on the basis of the alleged voluntary statement of one of the accused, the present petitioner was also suspected. However, no incriminating material could be able to be placed as against the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and on the ground of parity, the present petitioner also deserves to be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader in his submission, submitted that even though the direct overt act is against accused No.1 but active involvement of the other accused persons have also been shown by the prosecution witnesses in which regard, the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient material. He further submitted that CW.8 – Bar owner has given his statement about all the accused sharing booty of the incident in his Bar and Restaurant.
5. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court prima facie at this stage go to show that the direct overt act is alleged against accused No.1 who is said to have inflicted injuries on the deceased Suresh on his vital parts of the body by making use of a knife. However, the allegation against the present petitioner is of assaulting the deceased with his legs. The alleged recovery of a Samsung cell phone even if it is taken, was made at the instance of the present petitioner still to what extent he can be implicated in the alleged commission of crime is the matter to be considered in detail at the time of full fledged trial. For time being, suffice it to say that the petitioner is said to be in judicial custody for more than two years and that his implication even according to the learned High Court Government Pleader is based on the alleged voluntary statement, which is said to have been given by the co-accused. The apprehension of the prosecution that the accused may flee from justice can be checked by imposing reasonable restrictions. Even on the ground of parity, since co-accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 who stand on the same footing as that of the present petitioner are said to have enlarged on bail, the similar benefit cannot be denied to the present petitioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner be enlarged on bail in Crime No.561 of 2016 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i) That the petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties with proof of his address and to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court.
ii) The petitioner to give in writing about the change in his address, if any, to the Investigating Officer as and when such change occurs and obtain acknowledgement in that regard.
iii) He shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing.
iv) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses and documents.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR/-