IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7777/2017 BETWEEN:
VENKATESH S/O RANGESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O HUNASAGAHATTA VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577017.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADV.) AND:
THE STATE BY HONNALLI POLICE HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, RPTD. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT , BENGALURU-560001 (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.) ...RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.104/2016 OF HONNALI POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE AND S.C.NO.111/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 201 AND 302 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, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station in Crime No.104/2016.
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. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that earlier, the brother of the complainant lodged the missing complaint dated 20.03.2016, on the basis of which Crime No.99/2016 came to be registered. He made the submission that so far as missing complaint is concerned, the name of the present petitioner is not at all mentioned, even on suspicion. He made the submission that during investigation, on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.2, the investigation officer arrested accused No.1. Further, he submitted that even so far as the allegation that accused No.1 had conversation with the deceased over the mobile phone, even that said mobile phone does not belong to accused No.1. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution, the mobile belongs to accused No.2. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that so far as accused No.1 is concerned, there is no prima facie material to connect accused No.1 to the alleged offences. Hence, he submitted that imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that prosecution material reveal that there is recovery of amount even from the present petitioner, so also recovery of sickle and blood stained clothes of the present petitioner. Learned HCGP made the submission that as per the prosecution material, it is the present petitioner who called the deceased over mobile phone to come to a particular place. Hence, submitted that there is prima facie material even as against the present petitioner and hence, submitted that he is not entitled to be granted bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the petition, FIR, complaint and the entire material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the petition.
6. Looking to the complaint averments, it is evident that the present petitioner called the deceased over the mobile phone belonging to accused No.2. Therefore, this goes to show that the mobile phone does not belong to accused No.1. The Investigation Officer, after recording the voluntary statement of accused No.2 wherein accused No.2 took the name of the present petitioner that it is himself and accused No.1 together have committed the alleged offence, the present petitioner also came to be arrested in the matter. No doubt, as submitted by learned HCGP, there is recovery of money said to be taken from the deceased and also a sickle and blood stained clothes of the petitioner, the voluntary statement of accused No.2 not binding on the present petitioner unless there is some other independent material produced by the prosecution about the involvement of the present petitioner. Petitioner contended that he is innocent and has not committed the alleged offence. There are no eye witness to the incident. Case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence and the only circumstance, as referred to above, is recovery of sickle and blood stained clothes of the present petitioner. Now, the investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet is filed. Hence, looking to these materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to enlarge the accused No.1 on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner- accused No.1 is enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one solvent 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 ln.