IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.1366/2019 Between:
1. Sri. Doddaiah S/o. Late Muniyappa Aged 49 years R/at Near Government School Tulasinagara, Doddagollarahalli, Magadi Main Road, Bangalore 560 091.
2. Sri. Ramesh S/o. Ramaiah, Aged about 33 years, R/at 8th Cross, 1st Main, Kempegowda Nagar, Byadarahalli, Bangalore 560 091.
(By Sri. Venkataramappa, Advocate) And:
State by Tavarekere Police Station Rep. by State SPP High Court 560 001.
(By Sri. K. P. Yoganna, HCGP) … Petitioners … Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.345/2018 of Tavarekere Police which is pending on the file of the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara, for the offences punishable under Section 34, 201 and 302 of IPC and Sections 3(2), 5(A) of SC ST Act, 2016.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER The notice issued to the complainant has been served.
2. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this petition seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with their detention in Crime No.345/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Act, 2015.
3. The case of the prosecution is that initially the case was registered under UDR No.40/2018 and on the basis of the opinion of the doctor that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of drowning and three ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased, the complaint was converted into Crime No.345/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
4. The petitioner No.1 is the father of deceased Kavitha, whereas petitioner No.2 is the maternal uncle of the deceased. It is stated that statement of co-worker of the deceased, and Kumari Tanuja, elder sister of the deceased was recorded and have implicated the accused in the commission of the offence. It is stated that the petitioners were arrested on 21.02.2019. The petitioners state that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and there are none who have seen the commission of the alleged offences. It is further stated that motive is sought to be made out in the light of the death of Kavitha. It is stated that the petitioners herein had planned to eliminate Chethan with whom Kavitha is said to have had an affair in retaliation to the death of Kavitha.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the statement of CW5 was recorded on 16.01.2019 and further statement was recorded on 22.02.2019 though the incident was said to have taken place on 03.10.2018, and though CW5 is stated to have been with the accused till few hours before the incident. Hence, it is stated that the silence of CW5 till statements were recorded much later raises a doubt.
6. Taking note of the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence, that the investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed, the question as to whether the petitioners have committed the aforestated offences is a matter to be proved during trial on the basis of the circumstantial evidence and last seen theory.
7. In light of the above facts, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions:-
(i) Each of the petitioners shall execute a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only only) with surety for the like sum before the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioners, shall result in cancellation of bail.
(v) The petitioners shall report to the Station House Officer once a month till conclusion of the trial between 10.00 A.M and 5.00 P.M.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR