IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5880 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Sri. Vinod Kumar V. S/o late Venkatesh Aged about 24 years R/at No.28, Doddaladamara Main Road Near Chikkanna Angadi Chandrappa Circle Chunchanakuppe Post Tavarekere Hobli Bengaluru South Taluk Ramanagar District – 572 101. ... Petitioner (By Sri. N. Deenabandhu Rai, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Jnanabharathi Police Station Bengaluru District Now represented by Public Prosecutor High Court complex Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.196/2017 (S.C.No.81/2018) of Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 364(A), 109, 114, 302, 201 read with 34 of I.P.C.
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.5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.196/2017 (S.C.No.81/2018) of Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru District for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 364(A), 109, 114, 302, 201 read with 34 of I.P.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.5 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is working as Income Tax Officer. His son and accused No.1 were friends. On 07.09.2017 and 11.09.2017, accused Nos.1 to 4 conspired together with an intention to get money by illegal means, so as to spend a lavish life. Accused No.2 told accused No.1 to find out a man, who is sufficiently rich, so that we can abduct him for a ransom and get considerable amount. Accused No.1 thought that they can abduct the deceased-Sharath, son of the complainant as he is sufficiently rich, so that they can get more money. On 11.09.2017, he contacted Sharath, son of the complainant, who had recently purchased one motor bike and was also having craze to ride the same. Accused No.1 along with other accused persons hatched a plan and made the deceased to believe that, he would show one Benili bike, which is with his friend. On 12.09.2017, accused No.1 informed his other associates and fixed a place and time. Believing the words of accused No.1, the deceased took his brand new motor bike and proceeded to place where accused No.1 instructed him to arrive. Accused No.1 expressed his intention of riding motor bike, thus, he rode the motor bike, while deceased was pillion rider up to near Mookamika Plantation, where, accused Nos.2 to 4 were waiting in a Maruti Swift D-zire car for arrival of accused No.1 with deceased. Accused No.1 introduced the deceased to accused No.2 and requested him to join accused Nos.3 and 4, who were sitting in Maruti Swift D-zire car. By believing the words of accused No.1, deceased sat in the said car and joined accused Nos.3 and 4. While accused No.1 rode the motor bike and accused No.2 was a pillion rider, bit ahead of the car. Thereafter, accused Nos.3 and 4 demanded Rs.50,00,000/- from his parents. Thus, the deceased refused for such illegal demand and told that, his father will not agree for payment for a ransom of Rs.50,00,000/-, for such an attitude of the deceased, accused Nos.3 and 4 tied his hands and legs and made him to sit in rare seat of the car. Accused No.2 joined accused Nos.3 and 4, while accused No.1 took motor bike of the deceased and parked his motor bike in another place and went to the house of the deceased to observe the developments in the house of the deceased. As such, parents of the deceased were under impression that, he is missing. Accused No.1 pretended as if he is in search of the deceased. There, accused Nos.2 and 4, who were with the deceased in the car insisted him to convey their demand for a ransom to his father, but at that time also the deceased refused. Finally, accused Nos.2 and 4 gave threat and insisted to record audio and video clippings through mobile and same were forwarded to mobiles of parent and sister of the deceased. Accused No.1 was observing the developments in the house of the deceased and he confirmed that his parents have decided to lodge missing complaint. Accused No.1 contacted accused Nos.2 to 4 through mobile phone and conveyed that, parents of the deceased are not going to pay a ransom amount and they are going to lodge a complaint. Accused No.1 instructed accused Nos.2 to 4 to finish the deceased, so that they can escape from the entire episode. Initially, they did not agree, but later accused Nos.2 to 4 took plastic wire which they brought and tied neck of the deceased and caught hold of him, due to which, he died. On the basis of the said materials, charge sheet has been filed.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused No.5 was not present at the place of the incident and he was not known to the deceased and the complainant. He further submitted that chargesheet has been filed that there are no overacts alleged against accused No.5. He further submitted that the provisions of neither 364(A) nor other provisions are attracted to the petitioner-accused No.5 is concerned. He further submitted that after the alleged incident, the accused persons came to petitioner-accused No.5, who is a coolie and took the body and buried the same and have committed the offence. The alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and release the petitioner-accused No.5 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner-accused No.5 took the body and with the consent of the accused persons has buried. He further submitted that he has also got the money out of the said ransom. He further submitted that the provisions of Section 120(B) are also attracted. As such the petitioner-accused No.5 is also equally liable to be punishable in accordance with law. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and submission made by learned counsel for both the parties.
7. As could be seen from the compliant as narrated above, all of the overacts have been alleged against accused Nos.2 to 4 and in so far as the petitioner-accused No.5 is concerned, he has only associated with the other accused persons to burry the body and disappearance of the evidence. Even, the chargesheet material clearly goes to show that after the death of the deceased, accused No.5 along with other accused persons has transported the dead body and finally buried. Even as could be seen from the charge sheet material, accused Nos.1 to 4 that who have demanded ransom amount and at that time, the petitioner-accused No.5 was not in the picture. All these things concluded that no serious offence as against petitioner-accused No.5. Taking into consideration of the above said facts and circumstances, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner- accused No.5 is released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed and petitioner-accused No.5 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.196/2017 (S.C.No.81/2018) of Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru District for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 364(A), 109, 114, 302, 201 read with 34 of I.P.C. subject to the following conditions:-
1. The petitioner-accused No.5 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 in any manner directly or indirectly.