IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV Criminal Petition No. 2627 of 2019 Between:
Raghvendra Kanchana @ Barikeri Raghu S/o. Shree Basava Marakala Aged about 38 years Residing at Kotathattu Village Brahmavara Taluk Udupi District - 576213 …Petitioner (By Sri. V. Bharath Kumar, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka By P.S.I.Kota Police Station Udupi District - 576213 Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bangalore – 560001 2. Ms. Parvathi W/o. Ramachandra Aged about 45 years Kalmadi Road, Kotathattu Village Brahmavara Tq. Udupi - 576221 …Respondents (By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP for R1 Sri. B. Lethif, Advocate for R2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.15/2019 registered by Kota Police Station, Udupi for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 341, 323 and 302 read with 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner-accused No.9 is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to proceedings in Crime No.15/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 341, 323 and 302 read with 149 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there is a dispute between CW-1 and A1 to A3 who were neighbours insofar as construction was being put up by A1 to A3 and there was an apprehension by CW-1 that the latrine pit put up by A1 to A3 would affect the water in his well. It is stated that in this regard there was animosity between A1 to A3 and CW1. It is further made out in the complaint that on the intervening night of 26.06.2019 and early hours of 27.06.2019, there was an altercation and the case of the prosecution is that A1 to A8 had assaulted the deceased with fatal weapons. It is stated that the deceased succumbed to injuries and died. On the basis of the complaint, FIR is registered. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that admittedly as per the version of the complaint, motive is made out as against A1 to A3. It is further submitted that on a combined reading of the complaint and charge-sheet, overt acts are admittedly attributed only to A1 to A8. It is further submitted that the presence of A9 is a matter that is to be explained during trial and it is contended that the allegations made out against A9 are false.
4. The commission of offence and the role of A9 is a matter to be proved during trial.
5. Learned HCGP opposes grant of bail and contends that the petitioner is involved in other cases and that enlarging of the petitioner on bail would result in threat to the witnesses and as the petitioner is a rowdy-sheeter.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a list of documents in a tabular form showing the cases pending against the petitioner. A perusal of the said table would reveal that the petitioner has been acquitted with respect to the cases mentioned at Sl.Nos.2, 3, 5 and 7, whereas ‘B’ report has been filed upon investigation with respect to the cases at Sl.Nos.1, 6 and 8. As regards the case at Sl.No.4, it is stated that the petitioner has pleaded guilty and paid fine and the offence that is made out is only under Section 160 of IPC. Hence it is contended that the question of the petitioner and his antecedents, is a matter to be looked at in an appropriate manner.
7. It is to be noted that apart from criminal antecedents, the strength of the case on hand is also a matter to be looked into. Admittedly, the imputations made as regards the overt acts are against A1 to A8 as per the charge-sheet. The question as to the involvement and role of the petitioner, is a matter for trial. Insofar as the apprehension that the petitioner would tamper with the witnesses is concerned, this is a matter that could be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions and in the event of failure of such conditions, it is always open for the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail.
8. Accordingly, in light of the observation made above, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.15/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 341, 323 and 302 read with 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) The petitioner shall also mark his attendance once in a month till the conclusion of trial before the concerned Station House Officer.
(v) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(vi) 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.
sd/- Judge RD