IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3190/2019 Between:
Chidananda, S/o Gavirangappa, Aged about 30 years, R/at Siddappanagudibeedi, Handanakere Town, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District – 06. … Petitioner (By Sri Pratheep K.C., Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Handanakere Police Station, Tumkur District, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.109/2018 of Handanakere Police Station, Tumkuru District for the offences p/u/s 302, 201, 120B of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.109/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the mother of the deceased has filed a complaint stating that the deceased had gone to work and after work, left the house stating that he was going out. The complainant has stated that it had come to her knowledge that the deceased was along with accused No.2 till about 6.30 p.m. and thereafter had gone to his sister’s house at 7.30 p.m. It is further stated that later he was accompanied with C.W.2 and had gone to the house of C.W.5 and subsequently, left from there. It is stated that C.W.3 left along with deceased on his bike and dropped the deceased near the deceased’s sister’s house. Subsequently, the body of the deceased was found and complaint was lodged. FIR is registered and charge Sheet has been filed after investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the motive is made out as regards accused No.2 stating that accused No.2 wanted to do away with the deceased in order to inherit the property and for that purpose, accused No.2 had made use of accused No.1 who had assaulted and murdered the deceased, that there is no witness who has seen the commission of offence, that the proof of offence is a matter for trial and rests on circumstantial evidence.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader, however, opposes the grant of bail.
5. It is to be noted that the arrest of the petitioner is on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.2. There is no dispute that the case rests on circumstantial evidence as there is no witness who has seen the actual commission of offence. What happened after C.W.3 left the deceased at the house of the deceased’s sister is a matter that would come out only during trial. It is to be noticed that petitioner has been in custody since 08.12.2018. Present proceedings cannot be considered to be punitive in nature. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.109/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B 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) 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 VP