IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9323/2018 BETWEEN :
Ranganatha @ Ranga @ B.P.Ranga S/o Hanumantharayappa Aged about 26 years Residing at House No.138 Near Byraveshwara Provision Store 2nd Cross, Thippenahalli Doddabidarakallu, Nagasandra Post Bengaluru-560 073.
(By Sri M.R.Harish Kumar & Sri G.R. Sheshadri, Advocates) AND :
State of Karnataka By Peenya Police Station Bengaluru City-560 058 Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) … Petitioner … Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.99/2018 (C.C.No.14540/2108) (S.C.No.1379/2018) of Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No.99/2018 (CC.No.14540/2018, SC.No.1379/2018) of Peenya Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. The brief facts of the case as per the complaint are that on 25.02.2018 at about 7.00 p.m. when the complainant was there in her house along with the deceased husband, Kariyanna came to the house of the complainant and took the deceased Santhosh along with him to Madhu Wine Store and her husband did not return to the house in the night. Thereafter, the complainant made an enquiry with Kariyanna about non-arrival of her husband and he told that he has already sent the deceased Santhosh to his house and told that when himself and Kariyanna were in Madhu Wine Store, one Ranga of Doddabidarakallu came to the said wine store and told the cashier that he has quarreled in Meena Wine Store and he had short of Rs.20/- to purchase liquor and asked him to give liquor. At that time, the deceased Santhosh questioned Ranga as to why he has disclosed the incident that had taken place at Meena Wine Store and in that light, he picked up a quarrel and accused No.1 called his companions and threatened the deceased Santhosh and the cashier of Madhu Wine Store sent all of them out by saying not to quarrel there. Thereafter, Kariyanna pacified the quarrel and took the deceased Santhosh with him and sent to his house and the deceased Santhosh also told that he would go to his house. Further it is stated that thereafter the petitioner- accused No.1-Ranga, Naresh and Nagaraju took the deceased Santhosh by motorcycle to Doddabidarakallu, Andanappa Layout near a newly constructed shed, where accused No.1 threatened the deceased and picked up a quarrel and immediately strangulated the deceased. At that time accused Nos.2 and 3 held the deceased Santhosh tightly and knocked him down, then accused No.1-petitioner took a stone which was lying there and put on the head of the deceased, again accused No.1- petitioner took another stone and put on the head of the deceased. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also put stones on the head of the deceased with an intention to kill him. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 that there are no eye witnesses to the incident in question and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed and accused No.2 has been released on bail. He further submitted that on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.1, the remaining accused persons have been arrested. Even the statement of accused No.1 is not admissible except under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submitted that the alleged incident has taken place because of petty quarrel in Madhu Wine Store and subsequently what happened to the deceased is not noticed. He further submitted that the petitioner is not required for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation and he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that there is evidence of CW.13 who has seen lastly accused persons taking the deceased along with them and even CW.28 has also seen the accused and deceased together consuming alcohol. He further submitted that recoveries have been done at the instance of the petitioner-accused No.1 with regard to stained stones and other articles. He further submitted that there are specific overt acts alleged as against the petitioner-accused No.1 and the said acts corroborate with the medical evidence and PM report. He further submitted that the petitioner is involved in heinous offence and if he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. On going through the contents of the complaint and other material, it would indicate that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. When deceased went to Madhu Wine Store, where quarrel took place. Even as could be seen from the records, there are no other allegations except the voluntary statement of accused No.1 disclosing that he along with other accused persons and the deceased in the altercation he assaulted the deceased with stones. On going through the voluntary statement, it is not going to be used for any other purpose except under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Even the prosecution story discloses that earlier to the second incident, there was some altercation in respect of payment of Rs.20/- and thereafter the deceased came and quarreled in Wine Stores and at that time, the accused persons also threatened him and thereafter they took the deceased and warned him that they would take away his life. Except that, no other overt acts are alleged as against the petitioner. When the remaining accused have been released on bail on similar facts and circumstances, the petitioner-accused No.1 has made out a case to release him on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and accused No.1-petitioner herein is enlarged on bail in Crime No.99/2018 (CC.No.14540/2018, SC.No.1379/2018) of Peenya Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
iii) He shall be regular in attending the trial.
iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.
v) He shall mark his attendance on 1st of every month before the jurisdictional police between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till the trial is concluded.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-