Anil Kumar and Manjunatha @ Cadbury vs State

Budihal R.B., J.—This is a petition filed by the petitioners u/s 439 of: Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offence punishable u/s 302 read with 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No. 309/2013. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that on 06.06.2013 at about 8.20 p.m., after finishing his work, the complainant was going to his house at Kamakshipalya viz. Basaveshwaranagara 8th Main Road. When the complainant reached Airtel office on 8th Main Road, Basaveshwaranagara, four unknown persons holding dragger and longs were chasing one person and he was trying to escape from the assailants. But the assailants who were chasing the said person caught hold of his shirt collar and dragged on the right side of the chest. Other two persons assaulted him with longs on the right hand and head and ran away. Then the complainant and one traffic police constable shifted the injured person to Panacea Hospital for treatment. But before he reached the hospital, the injured died on the way to the hospital. The petitioners approached the trial Court by filing the petition in Crl. Misc. No. 4888/2013. The trial Court rejected the petition holding that the offence is u/s 302 of IPC and it is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the state.

The counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against these two petitioners is that Anil Kumar-Accused No. 4 caught hold the deceased and Manjunath-accused No. 5 assaulted the deceased on his stomach with his hands. Perusing the post mortem report, the cause of death of the deceased was due to the stab injury sustained on the chest. Looking the allegations and other materials collected in the matter, these two petitioners were not holding any deadly weapons and the only allegation against Accused No. 4-Anil Kumar was that he was holding the deceased and against Accused No. 5-Manjunath was that he assaulted the deceased on his stomach with hands. Looking to the allegations made against these two accused persons, there is no incriminating circumstances that they were holding deadly weapons and that they have assaulted the deceased and caused the injuries. Therefore, the allegations as against these two petitioners are different from the allegations made against other accused persons who said to have assaulted the deceased on the chest and caused the serious injuries. Therefore, so far as these two petitioners are concerned, their petition can be considered by imposing conditions. The apprehension of the prosecution that if the petitioners are released on bail, they may tamper the prosecution witnesses and they may abscond can be safeguarded by imposing reasonable conditions. If the petitioners violate any of the conditions, then prosecution is always at liberty to approach the Court seeking cancellation of the bail. Hence, looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that petition can be considered and the petitioners can be released on bail. Accordingly, petition is allowed and petitioners are ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable U/S. 143, 148, 302 R/W 149 of IPC registered in respondent police station Cr. No. 309/2013 subject to the following conditions:

i) Each petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) and to furnish two sureties for the likesum subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

iii) Petitioners have to attend to the proceedings before the trial Court regularly.