IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1046/2019 BETWEEN:
Ravi @ Munde S/o. Naganna Aged about 28 years, R/at Belagola Village, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District 571 430. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Nanjunda Gowda M.R., Advocate a/w Sri. Ramesh H. N., Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka By K. R. Sagar Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru 560 001.
... Respondent (By Sri. K. P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to release the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.74/2018 (Crime No.290/2018) of K. R. Sagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 pending on the file of the Hon’ble Principal Junior Civil Judge and JMFC at Srirangapatna, Mandya.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.290/2018 with respect to offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the neighbour of CW.1 and it is stated that three years prior to the incident, wife of CW.1 had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the accused and the same has not bee been returned to the accused. It is stated that on 17.04.2018, when CW.1 enquired about the same, the accused who was intoxicated has abused CW.1 with filthy language. In that connection, a complaint is stated to have been lodged on 18.04.2018. With respect to the complaint dated 18.04.2018, both parties had settled the dispute amongst themselves. However, there were subsequent altercations and on 26.07.2018, it is stated that the accused having noticed that his cow was dead, suspecting that the deceased was responsible and on noticing that the deceased washing the clothes near Snanaghatta river, Varuna Kaluve, it is alleged that the accused assaulted the deceased with an iron rod, thereafter stabbing her and thus committed murder and threw the dead body and the weapon into the river. A complaint was lodged, investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the case is made out in the charge sheet on the basis of statements of CW.5 and CW.8 who are stated to have seen the commission of offence. However, it is contended that since the said statements are recorded on 31.07.2018, though the incident had taken place on 26.07.2018, delay in recording the said statements not having been explained, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the version of CW.5 and CW.8 is a matter to be proved during trial and prima-facie there are doubts that could be entertained. It is contended that recovery is also doubtful insofar as recovery of weapon was from the Canal with flowing water and hence prima-facie there is doubt as regards the story of the prosecution which would entitle the petitioner to be enlarged on bail. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 27.07.2018 and the proceedings regarding grant of bail cannot be treated to be punitive in nature. The attribution of motive and its proof is also a matter for trial.
4. The Sessions Court by order dated 31.01.2019 rejected the petition seeking enlargement on bail by observing that that there were no changed circumstances and that the offences are serious in nature. However, in the light of the observation made above, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions.
5. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C., is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.290/2018 with respect to offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 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) 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.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-