IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8890/2017 BETWEEN:
1. SRI BASAVAN @ BASAVAMANI S/O LATE MADEGOWDA @ MADHUGANDAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.3C, RANI SANKEERNA APPAVU NAGAR, THALI ROAD, HOSUR TOWN P/R/AT PENNAGARA GRAMA DHARMAPURI DISTRICT TAMILNADU STATE – 78.
2. SRI PANDI RAJA @ PANDI S/O BASAVAN @ BASAVAMANI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.3C, RANI SANKEERNA APPAVU NAGAR, THALI ROAD, HOSUR TOWN P/R/AT PENNAGARA GRAMA DHARMAPURI DISTRICT TAMILNADU STATE – 78.
(BY SMT. A.N. RADHA KRISHNA, ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ATTIBELE POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001.
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.) ... PETITIONERS ...RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.320/2016 OF ATTIBELE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT AND IN S.C.NO.5029/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ANEKAL FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 302 AND 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.320/2016. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120(B) r/w. 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the submission that as per the complaint averments, there were no eyewitnesses to the incident. It is also his submission that on the next day i.e., on 2.10.2016 inquest was conducted and even while conducting inquest also there was no eyewitnesses as per the prosecution case. It is only on 9.10.2016 and 11.10.2016 when recording the statements of CWs.3, 20 and 21, the prosecution has come up with the version that there were eyewitnesses to the incident and implicated the present petitioners stating that it is they who assaulted the deceased and committed his murder. Learned Counsel submitted that this Court has already considered the bail application of accused No.3 and he has produced the copy of the said order dated 31.10.2017 passed in Crl.P.No.7002/2017. Hence, he submitted that looking to these materials, there is no prima facie case as against the petitioners. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed.
By imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition contending that there were eyewitnesses to the incident. They are CWs.3, 20 and 21. Therefore, in view of the statements of the eyewitnesses, the present petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also charge sheet materials.
6. The incident took place during the night of 01.10.2016 at about 10.30 p.m. Though it is the case of the complainant that he has seen the incident, he was not able to identify the deceased so also the persons who went on two wheeler vehicle in a high speed. On the next day, i.e. on 02.10.2016, inquest was conducted. But even in the inquest also, names of the eyewitnesses are not mentioned. But it is only on 9.10.2016 and 11.10.2016, the prosecution has come up with the version that there were three eyewitnesses to the incident, they are CWs.3, 20 and 21. If really there were three eyewitnesses, their names should have been mentioned, which is not done in this case. Apart from that, there is unexplained delay of 9 days in recording the statement of the alleged eyewitnesses. In view of this, if really there were eyewitnesses to the incident, it is the matter of trial before the trial Court.
7. I have also perused the bail order in respect of accused No.3, which is referred above. This Court has considered entire merits of the case while passing the bail order in respect of accused No.3. The petitioners herein contend that they are innocent and not involved in committing the said alleged offences and they are falsely implicated in this case. They are ready to abide by any 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 present petitioners.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to be released on bail for the aforesaid offences registered in Crime No.320/2016, subject to the following conditions:
i. Each of the petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE SA