IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL.R.B CRIMINAL PETITION No.8287 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. Pramod V., S/o late Venkatesh, Aged about 24 years, R/at No.96, Muthaiah Building, Behind Anjaneya Temple, Pattanegere, Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bengaluru-560 098.
2. Manoj Kumar B, Alias Kadalekayee Manu, S/o late Babu, Aged about 24 years, R/at No.204, 2nd Cross, 2nd Main, Srinivasanagar, BSK I Stage Bengaluru-560 050.
3. Arun Kumar, S/o Lingaraju, Aged about 24 years, R/at No.173, 1st Main, 6th Cross, Bangarappa Nagar, Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bengaluru-560 098.
(By Sri. Lokesha M.S., Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka by Hanumanthanagar Police Station Bengaluru.
(By Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP) …Petitioners …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Cr.No.242/2017 of of Hanumanthanagar P.S., Bangalore for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this Day, the court made the following:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the alleged offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC, registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 242/2017.
2. At the first instance, FIR came to be registered against six unknown persons but during the course of investigation, the petitioners have arraigned as accused Nos. 2 to 4.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Referring to the complaint averments and also other material on record collected by the Investigating Officer, learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that there is no consistency in the case of the prosecution. He made submission that looking to the complaint averments, the allegations are made that all jointly alleged to have committed the offence. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the statement of witnesses recorded making the allegations individually against each of the accused persons. He also submits that bail application of accused Nos. 8 and 9 has been considered and they are enlarged on bail by the order of this Court. He submitted that there is no prima-facie material as against all the three petitioners herein. Investigation is completed and chargesheet is also filed. By imposing reasonable conditions, they may be enlarged on bail and admitted to regular bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the State made the submission that looking to the prosecution material there is prima-facie case against all the accused persons i.e. accused Nos. 2 to 4. He also submitted so far as accused No. 2 is concerned, there is one more case is registered in Crime No. 192/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and hence, he is having criminal antecedents. So far as accused No.3 is concerned, during investigation his voluntary statement came to be recorded and at his instance the chopper is recovered so also the amount. But so far as accused No. 4 is concerned, learned HCGP is fair enough to make submission that nothing has been recovered at his instance.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR complaint and also other materials produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners so also the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation. So far as accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, as per their voluntary statement goes to show that they have shown the place where alleged offence said to have been committed. Apart from that, material on record also shows that petitioner No.1/accused No. 2 herein involved in murder case of one Shankar of Kaggalipura Police Station and criminal case is registered against him. So far as accused No.3 is concerned, his voluntary statement is recorded and he also shown the place of offence leading the police and panch witnesses and he has also pointed and produced the chopper which is recovered in front of panch witnesses.
6. Looking to these materials collected during investigation so far as accused No. 2 and 3 is concerned and looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence, I am of the opinion that accused Nos.2 and 3 are not entitled to be granted bail. Accordingly, petition in respect of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2/accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby rejected.
7. So far as petitioner No. 3 who is accused No.4 one Arun Kumar, there is no prima-facie material as on today as against him and his involvement in committing the offence. He has under taken that he is innocent and there is a false implication in the present case. He is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, looking to these materials, the petition in respect of petitioner No.3/accused No.4 is allowed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. Petitioner No.3/accused No.4 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Section 395 of IPC, registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 242/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner No.3 shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner No.3 shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner No.3 shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE SB