IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.895 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. PRADEEP S/O. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT DODDA BUKKASAGARA VILLAGE KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMGALUR DISTRICT-572 301. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY KADUR POLICE CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.125/2018 (S.C.NO.102/2018) OF KADUR POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201 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.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail in Crime No.125/2018 of Kadur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the deceased had told his wife to prepare Capsicum bonda and while he was in house he got a call from unknown person and left the house on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-18-U- 3398 but the deceased did not return home even at 10.00 p.m., and his phone numbers were switched off.
On the basis of the missing complaint, a case has been registered. Subsequently, on 13.05.2018, accused No.1 was arrested and his voluntary statement was recorded therein, it disclosed that the deceased had illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.1 and the accused No.1 requested the deceased to stop the said relationship. When he declined to do so, accused No.1 conspired with accused No.2 and on 28.04.2018 took the deceased to the land on the guise of talking and there, accused No.1 strangulated the deceased with motor cycle clutch wire and accused No.2 caught hold of the legs of the deceased.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already the charge sheet has been filed. The entire case rest on circumstantial evidence. Already accused No.2 has been released on bail, on the ground of parity, the petitioner/accused No.1 is also entitled to be released on bail. It is further submitted that there are no incriminating material as against petitioner/accused No.1. Further it is submitted that even the prosecution intending to rely upon the statements of CWs.18 and 19 to establish last seen theory but it is also not reliable. The alleged incident has taken place on 28.04.2018 and the statements of CWs.18 and 19 has been recorded belatedly on 14.05.2018. Further it is submitted that even the Post- Mortem report does not reconcile the time of death. The said time is not going to tally with the timings which has been stated in the voluntary statement of accused No.1. Further it is submitted that the trial may take some more time. He is ready to abide the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the circumstances on which the petitioner/accused No.1 is intending to rely upon are strong circumstances. All the circumstances together if they are looked into, they are pointing towards guilt of the accused. There is strong motive and pre-meditation. Even the last seen theory the petitioner wife was having illicit relationship, even accused No.1 advised the deceased, apart from that call details and also the recovery of dead body at the instance of accused No.2, all these materials clearly go to show that the petitioner/accused No.1 is involved in the serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is further submitted that there are no serious overt-acts as against accused No.2. The ground of parity, cannot be exercised in favour of accused No.1. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. Admittedly, there are no eye-witness to the alleged incident. Case is based on circumstantial evidence. The main circumstance on which the prosecution is intending to rely upon is that the motive, recovery of the dead body at the instance of accused, last seen theory and call details. In so far as the recovery of dead body of the deceased is concerned, the same has been recovered after twenty days of the alleged incident that too, the entire body has burnt and it has been identified only on the basis of the silver ring, which was found in the hand of the deceased. It is well settled proposition of law that mere suspicion itself cannot take place of proof, it has to be established. Be that as it may. Even the motive and other details are to be established during the course of trial. The entire case rest on circumstantial evidence and when the charge sheet has already been filed, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In that light, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.125/2018 of Kadur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner/accused No.1 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 leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
3. He shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., 1st of every month before the jurisdictional police station, till the trial is concluded.
4. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
5. He shall regularly attend the trial.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS