IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8833/2017 BETWEEN:
THIRUMALESH S/O. LATE ARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT KADANURUPALYA VILLAGE MADDURE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 570 023.
(BY SRI JAGADEESHA H., ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DODDABALLAPURA POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.
... PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.) THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.206/2016 OF DODDABELAWANGALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT AND IN S.C.NO.10007/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.302 AND 201 R/W. 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC registered in respondent – Police Station Crime No.206/2016.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Nephew of the deceased is the complainant in the case. I have perused the contents of the complaint, which goes to show that there was no eyewitnesses to the incident. The case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Even looking to the circumstantial evidence and perusing the statement of PWs.2 to 7, they raise suspicion of involvement of this petitioner. The suspicion however itself is strong, which cannot be taken as proof. The allegation is made against the petitioner about his involvement in committing the offences. He contended that only on the basis of the statement of accused No.2, this petitioner has been involved in this case.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 7.8.2017 passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4443/2017 in respect of accused No.2, wherein this Court has granted bail to accused No.2. I have perused the said order also.
5. Looking to the materials placed on record, as there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and even with regard to other materials also, the petitioner has made out a case to allow this petition. He has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.
6. Hence, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w. 34 of IPC registered in Crime No.206/2016, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE SA