IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.3631/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri Kumar T.N., S/o Ningaiah, Aged about 30 years, R/at Thoppanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District – 571 428. ... Petitioner (By Sri M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, By Maddur Police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru - 560001.
2. Abhilash T.M., S/o Manjanna, A/a 27 years, R/at Toppanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District – 571 428. ... Respondents (By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP for R-1;
Sri A.V. Ramakrishna, Advocate for R-2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.444/2018 of Maddur Police Station, Mandya for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 146, 148, 341, 307, 302, 120-B, 201 & 114 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner-accused No.7 is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.444/2018 with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 143, 146, 148, 341, 307, 302, 120(B), 201 and 114 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complaint was filed on 24.12.2018 stating that at about 4.15 p.m., deceased Prakash had come and taken the complainant, Moganna and Vinay Kumar in his car to the tender coconut market. It is stated that the complainant and Vinay Kumar were sitting in the back seat of the car and Moganna was driving and Prakash was sitting in the front seat. It is further stated that at about 4.20 p.m., the car was stopped by accused, who had came in a two-wheeler. It is alleged that there was an altercation and in the said altercation, accused No.1 is alleged to have stabbed Prakash and the other accused have also allegedly assaulted him. It is stated that the deceased succumbed to injuries and died. The complaint was filed against the accused, FIR is registered, investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. It is stated that the petitioner is in custody since 31.12.2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that only imputation in the charge sheet as regards the petitioner is that he had given clothes to accused Nos.1 and 5 and thereby helped accused Nos.1 and 5 to destroy evidence in the nature of blood stained clothes of accused Nos.1 and 5. It is further alleged that accused No.1 has given a sum of Rs.90,000/- and two mobiles to the petitioner, which acts were intended towards destruction of evidence and the present petitioner is a party to such acts. Hence, looking into the nature of offences alleged, the imputations made, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is stated that the proof of offence is a matter for trial.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State, however, opposes grant of bail and contends that the present petitioner, if enlarged on bail, would threaten the witnesses in light of the criminal antecedents. It is to be noted that apart from criminal antecedents, the merits of the case as against the petitioner is a matter that requires primacy in consideration. Also noting that proof of offence is a matter for trial and the present proceedings cannot be treated to be punitive in nature, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. Accordingly, in light of the observations made above, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.444/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 146, 148, 341, 307, 302, 120(B), 201 and 114 read with Section 149 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 mark his attendance once in a month before the concerned SHO till conclusion of the trial.
(iv) The petitioner not to enter the village of Thopanahalli, Maddur Taluk till the conclusion of the trial.
(v) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(vi) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(vii) 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 GJM