ASHOK vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under

Sections 302, 201, 109, 120B read with 34 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.142/2016.

Brief facts of the prosecution case that accused Nos.1 to 12, who are the followers of one Devu @ Devendra and said Devendra was

murdered and deceased Krishna @ Benne Krishna was supporting the accused persons, who are responsible for the death of Devu @ Devendra.

Petitioner and other accused fearing that the deceased may also attack them, entered into a conspiracy to murder the deceased. Therefore,

accused Nos.1 to 5 on 23.12.2016 when the deceased was having Coffee in a highway hotel on the direction of accused No.6, accused Nos.1 to

5 came in a car with deadly weapons, dashed against Honda Activa Scooter, in which the deceased was riding, made to fall on the ground, then it

is accused Nos.1 to 5 assaulted with deadly weapon causing grievous injuries. Thereafter, deceased was shifted to hospital and he succumbed to

injuries. At the first instance, FIR came to be registered for the offence under Section 302 of IPC against unknown persons, but during the course

of investigation, petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.7.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.7 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

As per the case of prosecution, there are three eye-witnesses to the incident viz., C.Ws.22, 23 and 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew

the attention of this Court to statement of C.W.23 one Vinay Kumar and submitted that even according to the statement of alleged eye-witness,

the name of present petitioner is not at all spoken to by the eye-witness about his participation or any other overt-act on deceased. However,

learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the statement of C.Ws.22 and 24, the name of present petitioner is also not spoken to by

the witnesses, he also submitted while conducting inquest mahazar proceedings, said witnesses have not stated about the presence of present

petitioner and subsequently, false statement has been given implicating the petitioner in the said case.

Perusing the charge sheet material even according to the prosecution, petitioner has not actually participated in the assault on the deceased, but

only the allegation of the prosecution that he along with other accused persons conspired to eliminate the deceased. Therefore, whether really there

is a conspiracy or not is a matter of trial after collecting evidence by the concerned trial Court. Petitioner has denied the allegations made in the

complaint as well as other materials produced by the prosecution and he contended that there is false implication and he has undertaken to abide

by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.

Therefore, looking to these materials, so also, the statement of alleged eye-witness, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretion

in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No.7 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable

under Sections 302, 201, 109, 120B read with 34 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.142/2016, subject to the following

conditions:

i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and shall 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.