IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.2185 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Sri.Akib Sayad, S/o.Sri.Fayaz Ahmed, Aged about 30 years, R/at V.R.Colony, 2nd Cross, Kothithopau, Tumakuru Town, Tumkur City-572 101. …Petitioner (By Sri.G.B.Nandeesh Gowda, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Women Police, Tumkur, Rep. by learned Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru-560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri.S.Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.90/2018 of Women Police Station, Tumakuru for the offence punishable under Section 302 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 proceedings in Crime No.90/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that complaint was filed by the brother of the deceased suspecting that husband of the deceased had done the death the deceased. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered, investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is sought to be implicated.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as investigation is completed, the question of proof of offence is a matter for trial and the petitioner to be entitled to enlarge on bail. It is further submitted that there is none who has seen the actual commission of offence and statement of CW-2 and CW-3 are only to the effect that they saw the petitioner entering the compound in which house of the victim is situated. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no criminal antecedents which remains uncontroverted.
4. Learned HCGP, however, states that a prima- facie case is made out and circumstantial evidence insofar as there was recovery from the accused and also statement of the other witnesses make out a case wherein needle of suspension points out the petitioner.
5. Taking note of the fact that there is none who has seen the commission of the crime the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The proof of offence is a mater for trial. Noting that the investigation is completed and the petitioner has been in custody since 10.09.2018, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is also to be noted that the present proceedings cannot be construed to be punitive in nature.
6. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 90/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 302 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) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature.
(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 NS