IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6670/2017 BETWEEN:
SATHISH @ SHATKA S/O NARASIMHAREDDY AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT No.64, 5TH MAIN NEAR TIRUYESATI GARMENTS JAI BHEEM NAGAR OLD MADRAS ROAD, B.T.M. LAYOUT BANGALORE-89. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI R.B.SADASHIVAPPA., ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SIDLAGHATTA TOWN POLICE STATION CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-01. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA., HCGP.) THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.114/2016 (S.C.NO.20/2017) OF SHIDLAGHATTA TOWN P.S., CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 447 AND 302 READ WITH 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 (it is wrongly mentioned in the cause title as accused No.2) under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, 447 read with 149 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station in Crime No.114/2016.
2. The wife of the deceased is the complainant in this case. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that the husband of the complainant went to the saloon shop of CW.2 on 16.11.2016 to have the shave and at that time, some four persons came on the two wheeler vehicles and thereafter they have assaulted and caused the death of the deceased i.e., husband of the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered against three persons namely, Lakshman, Ajay Reddy and Mahesh.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, statement of witnesses produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the order of the learned Sessions Judge, rejecting the bail petition of the present petitioner.
5. Perusing the materials on record, the complainant is not the eye witness and she is hearsay. Eye witness as per the prosecution is CW.2 – the owner of the saloon shop. His first statement was recorded on 16.11.2016. Looking to his first statement, there is no whisper about the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offences. It is only stated that the first accused person by name Lakshman and other three persons. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, even in the statement of the eye witness dated 16.11.2016, there is no mention at all. His further statement is recorded on 20.11.2016 i.e., after lapse of 4 days from the date of the incident wherein for the first time, CW.2 introduced the name of the present petitioner that he was also present along with four persons. If really according to him the present petitioner was also present, same is not mentioned in the first statement dated 16.11.2016. Even if the second statement is taken into consideration, he has mentioned his presence only but he has not mentioned that what was the weapons that he was possessing or his any overt acts on the deceased. Therefore, simply mentioning the name of the present petitioner in the second statement will not be sufficient for rejecting the bail of the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that he is innocent and not involved in the said incident and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offences.
He has undertaken to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Now, the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner who is mentioned as accused No.3 in the charge sheet to be released on bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.114/2016, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE