IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.9732/2018 BETWEEN:
Roobin @ Jayanth, S/o Raja, Aged about 33 years, R/at No.226, 1st Main Road, Paratari Town, Gandhi Village, Benson Town Post, Bengaluru – 560 048. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Ramesha H.N., Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Byatarayanapura Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri. K. P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.132/2016 of Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bangalore City for the offence p/u/s 120B, 341, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.
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.132/2016 with respect to offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 341, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of complainant and the deceased was performed on 30.11.2015 and the deceased was working in IBM Company. It is stated that the marriage of her sister-in-law Ashwini with Rubin took place about four years back and they were residing Metro Layout. It is further stated that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner and the deceased had warned the petitioner not to come to his house. It is stated that the sister of the deceased was in their house as she had given birth to a child and staying in her parent’s house. It is further narrated that Ashwini had forced the deceased to give share in the property which he had refused and hence, it is stated that Ashwini and her husband had nursed a grudge against the deceased. It is stated that on 31.03.2016, at about 4.30 a.m., the deceased was assaulted with deadly weapons and succumbed to injuries and died. On the basis of complaint, FIR was lodged, investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. The charge sheet makes out a case as against accused nos.1 and 3 as regards overt acts resulting in fatal injuries. It is noticed that accused no.3 has been enlarged on bail as per the order passed in Crl.P.No.961/2019 dated 01.07.2019. Even this court noticing that the eyewitness had turned hostile and had not supported the case of the prosecution or identified the accused opined that, a case was made out for being enlarged on bail. It is noticed that CW.22 who is the witness to the commission of offence has refused to identify the accused and has been treated as hostile.
3. Noting that insofar as overt acts are concerned, petitioner and accused nos.2 and 3 are placed on similar footing and accused no.3 has been enlarged on bail, the present petitioner is also to be enlarged on bail on the principle of parity.
4. 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.132/2016 with respect to offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 341, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner/accused no.1 shall execute a personal bond of `2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner/accused no.1 shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial (iii) The petitioner/accused no.1 shall not involve in any criminal cases.
(iv) The petitioner shall physically present himself and mark his attendance before the Station House Officer, Byatarayanapura P.S., Bengaluru City once in a month between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., till conclusion of the trial.
(v) Even a single absence before the trial court will result in cancellation of bail.
Np/-
Sd/-
JUDGE