IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6000 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Shankarappa Aged about 53 years S/o Late Honnappa R/o Banjara Beedi Holaluru Shivamogga- 577 216.
(By Sri. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, Advocate) …Petitioner AND:
The State of Karnataka By Shivamogga Rural Police Station Shivamogga Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner who is accused No.3 on anticipatory bail in C.C.No.419/2019 (Crime No.622/2018) of Shivamogga Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 115, 120B 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 This petition has been filed by the petitioner- accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in C.C.No.419/2019 (Crime No.622/2018) of Shivamogga Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 115, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 3 and also learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State.
3. The genesis of the case of the prosecution in brief is that there were civil disputes pending between the complainant and the accused persons.
Subsequently, a civil suit was also filed and in the said suit the deceased succeeded. Thereafter, accused persons started demanding share in the self-acquired property of the deceased. With an intention to grab the property accused persons hatched a plan and on 26.12.2018 at about 12.00 Noon when the deceased was proceeding to garden, under the guise of talking with the deceased, accused No.2-Manjappa started quarreling by saying that he has not given any share in the property and he will not allow them to pass through his site and at that time accused No.1-Prakash assaulted with sickle; at that time, accused No.5- Smt.Asha, the wife of Prakash, accused No.2-Manjappa, and accused No.4-Anil, were instigating and were telling that not to leave him and by saying the accused persons started running and accused No.1 also throw the sickle and ran away from the place of incident. On the basis of the same, a case has been registered.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 that the accused No.4 approached this Court and this Court by an order dated 30.08.2019 has released him on bail and on the ground of parity the petitioner-accused No.3 is also entitled to release on bail. It is further submitted that the complainant is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. Even the statement of the eyewitness-Sri.Ullas also discloses the fact that accused No.3 has only instigated the accused and it is accused No.1-Prakash, who assaulted with sickle and no serious overt acts as against the petitioner-accused No.3. It is further submitted that there are civil litigations pending between the accused and deceased and in order to grab the property a false case has been registered. It is further submitted that the investigation is already completed and charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner-accused No.3 is not required for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation. He is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner- accused No.3 on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that one Sri.Ullas is an eyewitness to the alleged incident and the accused No.3-petitioner has involved in committing the serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and fine. It is further submitted that the CC TV footage also clearly goes to show that the entire incident has been fully recorded. It is further submitted that the petitioner-accused No.3 was also present at the time of the alleged incident and he is the main accused who instigated the other accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased and he is liable to be punished for the said offence. He further submitted that there are civil litigations pending between the parties and if the petitioner-accused No.3 is granted anticipatory bail, then again, he may involve in such serious offence. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. Without expressing anything on the merits of the case and going through the contents of the charge sheet material, CWs.3, 4 and 5 are the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. On close reading of their statements it reveal that one Prakash-accused No.1 who assaulted with sickle and caused the death of the deceased and there are no serious overt acts alleged as against petitioner-accused No.3. That the only allegation which has been made against the present petitioner is that he is the main instigator and at his instigation, the accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with sickle.
Whether the petitioner-accused No.3 instigated the accused No.1 or not is a matter to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. When already the accused No.4 has been released on anticipatory bail by this Court and on the ground of parity, the petitioner- accused No.3 is also entitled to be released on bail.
8. Taking consideration of the above facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed and petitioner- accused No.3 is enlarged on anticipatory bail in C.C.No.419/2019 (Crime No.622/2018) of Shivamogga Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 115 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner-accused No.3 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 surrender before the Court below within 15 days from today.
3. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
4. He shall mark his attendance once in a month on every 1st day before the jurisdictional police station, till the trial is concluded.
5. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
Sd/- JUDGE DL