IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO.5603/2019 BETWEEN SRI DEVARAJU S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O AMBEDKAR COLONY, TAYALURU GRAMA, MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. N. NANDAN, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KADUGODI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. …. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.43/2019 REGISTERED BY KADUGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 AND 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent State.
2. Perused the records.
3. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in the charge sheet filed by the respondent police in C.C. NO.5743/2019 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Ramamurthy, son of one Smt. Shakuntalamma, was the resident of Tayaluru village in Kolar District. It is alleged that the accused persons persuaded the said Shakuntalamma that they will get job to her son Ramamurthy and told her to send him along with them. They assured that they will get job as an electrical helper in Kannamangala, Bengaluru. In this context, the deceased left the house on 11.2.2019 and went to Bengaluru. It is the case of prosecution that on 11.2.2019, the accused and the deceased were seen in the house in an apartment and the witness by name Madhusudhan is the owner of a room which is situated at PP road, Richmond town, Bengaluru. On 12.2.2019 at about 7.30 in the morning, the said Madhusudhan received some information from his relative that one person died in the room. He immediately went to the spot and found that the deceased and the accused persons were in the said room. The deceased was lying on the bed. On asking the accused about the deceased, they disclosed that the said Ramamurthy was not well. Immediately, at the instance of both accused, the injured was admitted to Axis hospital at Bengaluru. Thereafter, he was shifted to R.L. Jalappa hospital and he died on 15.2.2019. The statement of this witness was recorded after four months i.e, on 19.9.2019. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post mortem. Though the doctor has stated that the deceased was under strangulation and the other injuries were also found on the body of the deceased, the P.M. examination report does not disclose the exact cause of death and hence, it was kept pending for FSL report.
5. Be that as it may. The entire case revolves around the circumstances of last seen of the accused and the deceased together. But the fact is that the accused themselves have shifted the injured to Axis hospital and then to R.L. Jalappa hospital. The statement of the doctor shows that the accused have admitted the deceased with history that some unknown persons have assaulted the deceased.
Therefore, the prosecution has to establish that the accused persons have actually committed the murder of the deceased and that why they have shifted the deceased to the hospital and the same have to be thrashed out during the course of full dressed trial. When the case is based on circumstantial evidence that too on the last seen theory alone, in my opinion, the same facts have to be proved during the trial. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with C.C. No.5743/2019 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs Ct-bmc