IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2038 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SUHAIL NAZUR S/O. ABDUL NASEER AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT KUNGATHI PARAMBIL, CHURARNIKERE VILLAGE, THAYIKATTA KERE TALUK, ALUVA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA – 682 001. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.LATHIF, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY UPPINANGADY POLICE STATION, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G.., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.259/2018 OF UPPINANGADI POLICE STATION, DAKSHINA KANNADA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 120-B OF IPC.
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.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail in Crime No.259/2018 of Uppinangadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution are that the deceased had illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.2 and deceased has disrupted the business of accused No.5. On 25.08.2018, accused Nos.1 to 5 had a meeting at Flora Residency Hotel and they made a plan to take away the life of the deceased. As per the plan on 31.08.2018, accused Nos.1 to 4 along with the deceased traveled towards Uppinangadi, stayed in Adithya Lodge. On 02.09.2018 at about 2.10 a.m., they vacated the rooms and traveled towards Maripade. At that time, the deceased was sleeping, accused No.1 stabbed on his right neck and chest. Accused No.2 pulled back the neck of deceased with nylon rope and accused No.3 stabbed on his chest and stomach. At that time, accused No.4 was driving the car. As a result of the same, the deceased has died. Thereafter, they threw the dead body to Kuppetty river in order to stream the evidence. On the basis of the said complaint, the case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The entire case based on the circumstantial evidence. Whereas looked into all the circumstances and records, there is no specific overt- acts alleged against the petitioner/accused No.4 except that he was in the company of the other accused persons and he was driving the car. He further submitted that there is no prima facie materials to show that the petitioner/accused No.4 has committed the alleged offence. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.4 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that that the petitioner/accused No.4 has conspired with the other accused persons and even the CCTV footage of the Hotel collected by the Investigating Officer, clearly goes to show that the petitioner/accused No.4 was also present at the time when all the accused staying at the said lodge. It is further submitted that prosecution record shows that at the time of the alleged offence, the petitioner/accused No.4 was present and he was watching all the incident. Subsequently, he has also conspired with the other accused persons to dispose of the body and screening the evidence. There is ample material to connect the petitioner/accused No.4 in the alleged offence. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the charge sheet materials the presence of the accused No.4 is shown but no specific overt-act is stated. The overt-acts are as against the accused Nos.1 to 3. The only allegation said to have been made as against accused No.4 is that he was driving the said car at the time of the alleged incident and he has kept watching all the incident. Subsequently, accused Nos.1 to 4 threw the dead body into the river only to screen the evidence. Already charge sheet has been filed and present petitioner/accused No.4 is not necessary for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation. Under the above said facts and circumstance, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioners/accused No.4 is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In that light, petition is allowed.
Petitioners/accused No.4 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.259/2018 of Uppinangadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) of IPC subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioners/accused No.4 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 leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
3. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
4. He shall regularly attend the trial.
Sd/- JUDGE KTY