Daniel Chinazor Alaso @ Baby vs State Of Karnataka

S Vishwajith Shetty, J

The accused in S.C.No.168/2022 pending before the Court of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.14/2022 registered by Nandagudi Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 379 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and Section 14 of Foreigners Act, is before this Court in this criminal petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking regular bail.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent/State.

FIR in Crime No.14/2022 was registered by Nandagudi Police Station, Bangalore, initially for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against unknown person based on the first information dated 01.02.2022 received from Rudramani. During the course of investigation, petitioner was arrested on 02.02.2022 and remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against him for the aforesaid offences. Petitioner's bail application filed before the trial Court in S.C.No. 168/2022 was rejected on 18.08.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds raised in the petition and submits that the petitioner who has no other criminal antecedents is in custody for the last more than 4 years. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Material charge sheet witnesses have been examined.

Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the bail petition, however, does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The FIR in the present case was registered initially against unknown person. During the course of investigation, petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. In the charge sheet which is filed subsequently, it is alleged that petitioner was staying in a rented premises which was taken care of by deceased Shiva Kumar. Petitioner was asked to vacate the rented premises since he had failed to pay the rent regularly and it is alleged that while evicting the petitioner, Shiva Kumar had not returned him his fridge and other articles. It is under these circumstances, petitioner allegedly had a vengeance against Shiva Kumar.

On 31.01.2022, petitioner was having food in the house of C.W.6 and at the said time, Shiva Kumar came there and abused the petitioner. The petitioner allegedly had asked him to return his fridge and when Shiva Kumar refused, petitioner had assaulted him with his hand on his face. On the very same day, the petitioner subsequently had gone to the house of Shiva Kumar and after quarrelling with him, he allegedly dashed the head of Shiva Kumar against the cement block in his toilet and thereafter had left the house with the watch belonging to the deceased. The injured Shiva Kumar subsequently succumbed to the injuries. Under the circumstances, FIR was registered against an unknown person.

Undisputedly, the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. During the course of trial, the material charge sheet witnesses have been now examined as P.W.1 to P.W.7. It is not in dispute that petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The prosecution in all has cited 28 charge sheet witnesses in the present case and only 7 have been examined as on this date. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and another - (2024) 9 SCC 813 at Paragraph No.17 has observed as follows:

"17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively subject to appropriate conditions. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.168/2022 pending before the Court of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.14/2022 registered by Nandagudi Police Station Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 379 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and Section 14 of Foreigners Act, subject to the following conditions:

a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the date of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed of.

f) The petitioner shall surrender his Passport before the trial Court which shall be subject to final outcome of the case.