IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.2727/2019 Between:
Prasad @ Raghavendra Prasad, S/o Smt. Gangamma, Aged about 38 years, R/at # 9, 17th ‘B’ Cross, 4th ‘B’ Main, 4th Stage, Agrahara Dasarahalli, Magadi Main Road, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore North – 560 050. … Petitioner (By Sri M. Krishne Gowda, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka, State by Magadi Road Police, High Court Government Pleader, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr. No.217/2018 (S.C. No.332/2019) of Magadi Road P.S., Bangalore for the offences p/u/s 143, 147, 148, 448, 307, 302, 120B r/w 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER The petitioner-accused No.7 is seeking to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.217/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 448, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, who is the wife of deceased had lodged a complaint against the petitioner and other accused alleging the commission of offences as aforestated. It is the case of the prosecution that the house of accused No.1 was demolished pursuant to the complaint by the deceased. In order to protect the remaining property, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 8 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with an intention to do away with the deceased. On 14.10.2018 the accused called the deceased stating that they would settle the dispute.
It is stated that the accused have assaulted the deceased and the deceased has succumbed to the injuries and died.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. That the overt acts as regards inflicting injury which has resulted in death of deceased is attributed to accused Nos.1 to 4. It is further stated that the only imputation made against the petitioner is that he has conspired with the other accused to do away with the deceased. It is submitted that the proof of offence is a matter for trial and in light of the charge sheet being filed, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
4. Taking note of the fact that investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed and also the version of the prosecution in the charge sheet wherein imputations regarding inflicting fatal injuries is against accused Nos.1 to 4 and the role of the petitioner in the commission of offences is that allegedly he had conspired to do away with the deceased, is a matter to be proved during trial, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Further, there is force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that custodial interrogation is not called for.
5. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.217/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 448, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall appear in person before the Investigating Officer in connection with Crime No.217/2018 within 15 days from the date of release of the order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with a surety for the likesum before the concerned court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way, any witness.
(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with further investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer as and when he is called upon.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
VGR Sd/- JUDGE