IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.715 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI KIRAN PAI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O. PANDURANGAPPA SRINIVAS CHANDRAPPA CIRCLE CHUNCHUNNAKATTE POST TAVAREKERE HOBLI BANGALORE-562 130 (PERMANENT ADDRESS KADU SHEET, STATE BANK MANGALORE TOWN) …PETITIONER (BY SRI.RANGANATH REDDY.R., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE BY JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION BANGALORE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.196/2017 (S.C.NO.81/2018) OF JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 364A, 109, 114, 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on regular bail in Crime No.196/2017 (S.C. No.81/2018) of Gnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 364A, 109, 114, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-Sate.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant was working as an Income Tax Officer. Deceased was the son of complainant and was a friend of accused No.1. Accused No.1 was also acquainted with family members of the deceased-Sharath. It is further alleged that in between 07.09.2017 to 11.09.2017, accused Nos.1 to 4 conspired with an intention to get money by illegal means, so that, they can lead a lavish life. In that light, accused No.2 told accused No.1 to find out a person who is having sufficiently rich income, so that, they can abduct him for ransom. When they were finding out a person for abduction, accused No.1 thought that if they abduct the son of the complainant they can get more ransom. On 11.09.2017, accused No.1 contacted the son of the complainant who has recently purchased one motorbike and he was also craze about different types of motorbike. As this thing also known to accused No.1, he hatched a plan and made deceased- Sharath to believe that he would show one Benili bike, which is with his friend. Thus, on 12.09.2017, accused No.1 informed his other associates and fixed a place and time. Believing the words of accused No.1, deceased- Sharath took his brand New motorbike and proceed to place where accused No.1 instructed him to arrive. Accused No.1 expressed his intention of riding motorbike, thus, he rode the motorbike, while deceased was pillion rider up to near Mookambika Plantation, where accused Nos.2 to 4 were waiting in a Maruti Swift D-zire car for arrival of accused No.1 with deceased- Sharath. Accused No.1 introduced deceased-Sharath to accused No.2 and requested him to join accused Nos.3 and 4 who were sitting in Maruti Swift D-zire car. Therefore, deceased – Sharath believing the words of accused No1 sat in the said car and joined accused Nos.3 and 4, while accused No.1 rode motorbike and accused No.2 was pillion rider bit ahead of car. When accused Nos.3 and 4 demanded `50,00,000/- from the parents of deceased – Sharath, he refused for such illegal demand and told that his father will not agree for payment of ransom of `50,00,000/-. Hence, accused Nos.3 and 4 tied the hands and legs of deceased and made him to sit in the rare seat of the car and accused No.1 took motorbike of Sharath and parked his motorbike in another place and went to the house of Sharath to observe the developments in the house of deceased- Sharath and he pretended as if he is in search of Sharath. Again accused Nos.2 and 4 were insisted him to convey their demand for ransom to his father, but at that time also Sharath refused. Finally, accused Nos.2 to 4 gave threat and insisted to record audio and video clippings through mobile and same were forwarded to mobiles of parents and sister of deceased. As accused No.1 came to know that parents of Sharath have decided to lodge missing complaint, he contacted accused Nos.2 to 4 through mobile phone and told that parents of Sharath are not going to pay ransom, in which case definitely they are going to lodge complaint with police concerned. Thus, he instructed accused Nos.2 to 4 to finish Sharath, so that they can escape from entire episode. Finally, accused Nos.2 to 4 took plastic wire, and tied neck of Sharath and caught hold him, due to which, he died because of strangulation.
4. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a delay in recording the statements of CWs.7 and 8 that who are said to have been lastly seen the accused persons along with the deceased. He further submitted that no specific overt acts has been alleged as against petitioner-accused No.4 that all the overt acts has been alleged as against accused No.3 and even the recoveries are also at the instance of accused No.3. Further, he submitted that only accused No.4 has facilitated to do the act and nothing more than that. Even the statements of CWs.7 and 8 is also not acceptable, the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and no incriminating material is furnished by the prosecution. Further, he submitted that the petitioner-accused No.4 is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused No.4 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that Samsung and other articles have been recovered at the instance of accused No.4 and he has also actively participated in the alleged crime and he is also equally responsible for the said act. He further submitted that petitioner-accused No.4 has conspired with other accused, he is equally liable to be punish in accordance with law. If petitioner is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar type of activities. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondent – State and perused the material on record.
7. On close reading of charge sheet material and other records there are no serious overt acts made against accused No.4. All allegations which have been made are against accused Nos.2 and 3 and no recoveries have also been made from the possession of accused No.4. Under the said facts and circumstance, I feel, if by imposing some stringent condition, if petitioner-accused No.4 is enlarged on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In that light, petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused No.4 is enlarged on bail in Crime No.196/2017 of Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 364A, 109, 114, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:-
1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
2. He shall be regular in attending the trial.
3. He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
4. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
5. He shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e. on last Saturday till the trial is concluded.
Sd/- JUDGE BS