IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8455/2017 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8564/2017 IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8455/2017 BETWEEN:
MALLESHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O MAHADEVAIAH, R/AT KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, HAMPAPURA HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DIST-571125.
(BY SRI.SUNIL KUMAR S., ADV. FOR SRI HANUMANTHARAYA C H) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY H.D. KOTE POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX, BANGALORE-01 (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.148/2017 (SPL.C.C.NO.327/2017) OF H.D.KOTE POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATTROCITIES) ACT.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8564/2017 BETWEEN:
VIJAY KUMAR S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT CHAMALAPURA VILLAGE, H.D.KOTE TALUK-571114, MYSURU DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD, SEN.ADV. AND SRI MANJUNATHA N, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY H.D.KOTE POLICE, MYSORE SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01.
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.148/2017 (SPL.C.C.NO.327/2017) OF H.D.KOTE POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATTROCITIES) ACT.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Since these two petitions are in respect of same crime and common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, they are taken together to avoid repetition of discussion of law and facts and to dispose of them by this common order.
2. Crl.P.8455/2017 is filed by petitioner/accused No.2 and Crl.P.8564/2017 is filed by petitioner/accused No.3, both these petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.148/2017.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused in both the petitions and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State in respect of both the petitions.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petitions, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
5. The father of the deceased is the complainant. I have perused the contents of the complaint. The father of the deceased is not the eye- witness to the incident. The incident is said to have taken place in the land of one Puttaswamy and when the boys were talking about the dead body lying in the land, which was over heard by the complainant, the complainant went to the said place and seen the dead body, looking to the clothes on the dead body, he identified that it is the dead body of his son Siddaraju. The complainant has also mentioned about the financial dealings in between the deceased and accused Nos.1 to 3, and as earlier they have warned the deceased that if he did not give the money, they will not leave him, hence, he raised suspicion that because of that reason they might have committed the murder of his son Siddaraju and therefore, the complainant mentioned the names of those three persons. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered against the petitioners and accused No.1 for the said offences.
6. Looking to the prosecution material, there is no eye-witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances, according to learned HCGP, are three in numbers, one - is the motive regarding the financial transaction in between the deceased and the accused persons, as they were telling that if the deceased did not pay the money they will not leave him; the second circumstance is that there is a last seen theory that C.Ws.4 and 14 have stated that they have seen the deceased in the company of accused Nos.1 to 3; and the last is that the blood stained clothes of accused No.1 are recovered at the instance of accused No.1, who gave the voluntary statement.
7. Looking to the materials so far as the last seen theory is concerned, the statements of C.W.4 and C.W.14 is recorded after lapse of 24 days and 37 days respectively. Therefore, at present no importance can be attached to the said statements of the witnesses. The petitioners have contended in the respective petitions that they are innocent, they have been falsely implicated in the case and they have undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. When there are no direct witnesses and even the alleged recovery of the blood stained clothes is by accused No.1 and not by these two petitioners, I am of the opinion that petitioners have made out a case for their release on bail.
8. Hence, both the petitions are allowed.
Petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.148/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR