IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7476 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Sri. Manjunath @ Kinetic Manju S/o Nagaraj, Aged about 21 years, Residing at No.26, 1st Cross, Ramakrishna Ashrama Layout, K.G. Nagara, Bengaluru – 560 019. ...Petitioner (By Sri. Mohamed Ibrahim, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka By the SHO of City Market Police Station, Bengaluru City – 560 002. Represented by Learned State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru-560 001. ...Respondent (By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.26/2018 (S.C. No.1088/2018) of City Market Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 411 read with Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to release him on regular bail in Crime No.26/2018 of City Market Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 411 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 12.02.2018 at about 8:00 p.m. when the deceased was speaking over phone, accused persons observed the same and stopped the two wheeler and in order to snatch the said mobile phone from Bhamra Ram (deceased) showed knife to him by thinking that by selling the said mobile phone they can consume liquor and in that context, accused Nos.2 and 3 came near the Bhamra Ram and caught hold him and accused No.1 took out the knife from his pocket and pierced into the thig of the Bhamra Ram. Immediately, he came near the shop of the complainant and informed that somebody had assaulted him and request to take him to hospital for having suffered the injuries. When he was on the way to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the complaint, case came to be registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already charge sheet has been filed. He further submitted that complaint has been registered against the unknown persons. He further submitted that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the petitioner/accused No.2 along with accused No.3 caught hold the deceased and at that time, accused No.1 took out the knife from his pocket and pierced into the thigh of the deceased and as a result of the same, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. He further submitted that there is no recovery effected at the instance of accused No.2 and there are no specific overtacts as against accused No.2. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail and allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that material shown in the charge sheet indicates that petitioner/accused No.2 along with accused Nos.1 and 3 has committed the murder of the deceased for gain. He further submitted that if the petitioner/accused No.2 is released on bail, he may abscond and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials which are placed on record.
7. On close reading of the complaint, it is seen that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and even the materials which have been produced clearly go to show that accused Nos.2 and 3 caught hold the deceased and at that time, accused No.1 took the knife and pierced into the thigh of the deceased. As a result of the same, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. There are no other specific overtacts against accused No.2. Charge sheet has already been filed and custodial interrogation is not necessary. Hence, I feel, by imposing stringent conditions the petitioner/accused No.2 may be ordered to be released on bail, which is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In the light of the discussion held above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.26/2018 of City Market Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302, 411 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner/accused No.2 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 Trial Court.
2. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly and they shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.
3. He shall appear before the Court regularly during the trial.
4. He shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the Court.
5. He shall mark his attendance on 1st of every month before the jurisdictional police between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. till the trial is concluded.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM