IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3612 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
VINAY PRASADH @ VICKY, S/O SREEDHAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, #33, CHANDRAPPA CIRCLE, CHUCHUNAKATTE POST, TAVAREKERE HOBLUI, BENGALURU SOUTH, PIN – 560 071.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY R, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, JNANBHARATHI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY.
(REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ROHITH B.J., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME No.196/2017 (S.C.No.81/2018) OF JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 364A, 109, 114, 302, 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (accused No.2) and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in Crime No.196/2017 of Jnanabharathi Police Station, which is later culminated into S.C. No.81/2018 and which is now pending consideration before the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364A, 109, 114, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant was working as an Income Tax Officer.
Deceased was the son of complainant and was a friend of accused No.1. Accused No.1 was also acquainted with family members of the deceased-Sharath. It is further alleged that in between 07.09.2017 and 11.09.2017, accused Nos.1 to 4 conspired with an intention to get money by illegal means, so that, they can lead a lavish life. In that light, accused No.2 told accused No.1 to find out a person who is having sufficiently rich income, so that, they can abduct him for ransom. When they were finding out a person for abduction, accused No.1 thought that if they abduct the son of the complainant they can get more ransom. On 11.09.2017, accused No.1 contacted the son of the complainant who has recently purchased one motorbike and he was also craze about different types of motorbike. As this thing also known to accused No.1, he hatched a plan and made deceased – Sharath to believe that he would show one Benili bike, which is with his friend. Thus, on 12.09.2017, accused No.1 informed his other associates and fixed a place and time. Believing the words of accused No.1, deceased – Sharath took his brand New motorbike and proceeded to the place where accused No.1 instructed him to arrive. Accused No.1 expressed his intention of riding motorbike, thus, he rode the motorbike, while deceased was pillion rider up to near Mookambika Plantation, where accused Nos.2 to 4 were waiting in a Maruti Swift D-zire car for arrival of accused No.1 with deceased – Sharath. Accused No.1 introduced deceased – Sharath to accused No.2 and requested him to join accused Nos.3 and 4 who were sitting in Maruti Swift D-zire car. Therefore, deceased – Sharath believing the words of accused No.1 sat in the said car and joined accused Nos.3 and 4, while accused No.1 rode motorbike and accused No.2 was pillion rider bit ahead of car. When accused Nos.3 and 4 demanded Rs.50,00,000/- from the parents of deceased – Sharath, he refused for such illegal demand and told that his father will not agree for payment of ransom of Rs.50,00,000/-. Hence, accused Nos.3 and 4 tied the hands and legs of deceased and made him to sit in the rear seat of the car and accused No.1 took motorbike of Sharath and parked his motorbike in another place and went to the house of Sharath to observe the developments in the house of deceased – Sharath and he pretended as if he is in search of Sharath. Again accused Nos.2 and 4 insisted him to convey their demand for ransom to his father, but at that time also Sharath refused. Finally, accused Nos.2 to 4 gave threat and insisted to record audio and video clippings through mobile and same were forwarded to mobiles of parents and sister of deceased. As accused No.1 came to know that parents of Sharath have decided to lodge missing complaint, he contacted accused Nos.2 to 4 through mobile phone and told that parents of Sharath are not going to pay ransom, in which case definitely they are going to lodge complaint with police concerned. Thus, he instructed accused Nos.2 to 4 to finish Sharath, so that they can escape from entire episode. Finally, accused Nos.2 to 4 took plastic wire, and tied neck of Sharath and caught hold of him, due to which, he died because of strangulation.
4. The allegations made against the petitioner and accused No.4 are almost similar. The last seen theory as stated by CWs.7 and 8 has to be decided during the course of full dressed trial as their statement has been recorded after 28 days from the date of the incident. The role assigned to accused No.2 is that he caught hold of the waist of the deceased and accused No.4 caught hold of the legs of the deceased so as to enable accused No.3 to strangulate the neck of the deceased. The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The recovery of the dead body was at the joint statement of accused Nos.2 to 4 and the entire recovery has been made at the instance of accused No.3. With reference to the other material objects, the allegations made against accused No.4 have also been considered in detail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.715/2019 and vide order dated 28.03.2019, accused No.4 has already been released on bail. As noted above, common allegations are made against accused Nos.2 and 4. No worth recovery has been made from the petitioner and the entire circumstances have to be proved against him during the course of full dressed trial. On the ground of parity, in my opinion, the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the same conditions. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner (Accused No.2) – Vinay Prasadh @ Vicky shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.196/2017 of Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364A, 109, 114, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC, now pending in S.C. No.81/2018 before the Court of LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru City, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Petitioner 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 jurisdictional Court.
2. The Petitioner shall be regular in attending the trial.
3. The Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
4. The Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
5. The Petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e. on last Saturday till the trial is concluded.
Sd/- JUDGE sma