IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8109/2017 BETWEEN:
MEGHARAJA, S/O RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, COOLIES, R/O MUDUBASIDDAPURA VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK – 577 427.
(BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADV.,) AND:
STATE BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHIKARIURA RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIKARIPURA – 577 427.
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ... PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.341/2017 OF SHIKARIPURA RURAL P.S., SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302 OF IPC AND SEC. 3, 25, 27 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and under Sections 3, 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act registered in respondent police station Crime No.341/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The deceased is one Smt.Basamma, the complainant is one Smt.Annapoorna, who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. Perusing the complaint averments, complainant claims that she is the eye-witness to the incident. The complaint averments also show that in respect of compensation amount for acquiring the land, accused No.1 often coming to the house of the deceased and picking up quarrel with her, insisting her to pay the compensation amount to him. It is further stated that even on the date of incident also when the complainant was working in kitchen, in front of the house there was a quarrel and after hearing the noise she came out of the kitchen and when seen, accused No.1, who was holding country made gun, was insisting the deceased to give the compensation amount, for which she refused, then he fired at the deceased with the said gun and thereby caused her death. Therefore, looking to the complaint averments absolutely there are no allegations as against the petitioner herein. Even there is no whisper about the involvement of petitioner in the alleged incident, but the prosecution material shows that the remand application dated 21.08.2017, which is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, shows that after his arrest, accused No.1 has stated that he took the said gun from petitioner/accused No.2. So only on that basis, petitioner has been involved in the case. The petitioner has contended in the petition that he is innocent, not involved in committing the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.341/2017 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR