IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.2513/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri Rudrappa S/o Thippanna Aged about 50 years, R/at Jodi Ghikkenhalli Village, Chitradurga Taluk, Chitradurga District – 34. …Petitioner (By Sri Pratheep K.C., Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka Rep. by Arasikere Rural Police Station Hassan District Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru – 560001. ... Respondent (By Sri K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.23/2018 of Arasikere Rural Police Station, Hassan for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail to in connection with his detention pursuant to proceedings in Crime No.23/2018 with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that complaint was filed by one Sri.Naveen Kumar alleging that the land was leased to one Nagesh for the purpose of rearing Pomegranate plants. It is stated that the petitioner was employed as labourer by the said Nagesh and it is alleged that on 02.02.2018, petitioner had come to the house of Nagesh and collected sum of Rs.500/- at about 8.00 p.m., stating that he had to take his wife to the hospital and went away. It is stated that on 16.02.2018, the complainant noticed unknown dead body and on the basis of the said information, FIR came to be registered. Subsequently, on the basis of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. It is stated that there is voluntary statement of the petitioner that has been recorded and accordingly, charge sheet has been filed, on the basis of such voluntary statement.
3. It comes out that the case rests on circumstantial evidence. The alleged motive is that the deceased had threatened that she would file a complaint under Section 376 of IPC against the petitioner and in retaliation he has done away with the deceased. There is no eye-witness who has seen the commission of offence. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. The recovery of rope and spade and the inference to be drawn from such recovery and as to whether said recovery proves the commission of offence is a matter to be proved during trial. The petitioner has been in custody since 31.05.2018. It is to be noted that present proceedings are not to be treated as proceedings for punishment. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
4. It is to be noted that Sessions Court had rejected the petition of the petitioner seeking to be enlarged on bail observing that prima-facie case was made out. However, in the light of the observations made above, petition is allowed.
5. Accordingly, petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.23/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 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 not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature.
(vi) 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 NS