IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2654/2019 BETWEEN:
THAI HELL S/O TAGEM HELL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, GERU PALYA KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE-560085 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI M.KRISHNE GOWDA, ADV. FOR SRI GAJENDRA C.V., ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY KENGERI P.S., REP. BY HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP.) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.56/2019 OF KENGERI P.S., BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in S.C.No.860/2019. The brief allegations are that the accused No.1 is none other than the husband of Nethravathi. The mother of Nethravathi has lodged a complaint stating that the marriage between the accused No.1 and the deceased Nethravathi was performed about 4 to 5 years prior to the incident. They were residing at Sun city. In fact this love marriage was not relished by the family members, but thereafter they compromised as the accused No.1 has apologized for his acts etc., Thereafter, the accused No.1 was demanding for a site which was in the name of the sister of Nethravathi. As they refused, he wanted to commit the murder of Nethravathi’s sister i.e. Anu, wife of Sannath. In this context, it is alleged that on the date of the incident, at about 7.45 p.m. the accused No.1 went to the house of his sister-in-law Anu, in the absence of her husband, along with accused No.2 and assaulted on her face and also strangulated her neck. Accused No.2 also helped him in wrapping the body of the deceased with a bed sheet. On these allegations, the police have investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet.
3. As could be seen from the entire charge sheet, the whole allegations are made against accused No.1. He was actually seen near the house of the deceased on that day immediately after the incident. But no witness says about the presence of accused No.2. The entire recovery appears to have been made from accused No.1. Accused No.1 was arrested one day prior to the arrest of this petitioner. Though it is seen that there was some recovery at the instance of both the accused, but at this stage, the recovery itself is not sufficient to draw any inference. The whole allegations against accused No.2 appears to be the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.1. The presence of accused No.2 along with accused No.1 and the participation of accused No.2 in committing the murder of Anu has to be established during the course of full dressed trial beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Under the above said circumstances, as it is a circumstantial evidence case, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with S.C.No.860/2019 on the file of the LVI A.C.M.M, Bengaluru (arising out of Crime No.56/2019 of Kengeri Police Station) registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Dvr:
Sd/- JUDGE