Dinesh vs State

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the records.

The respondent-Kengeri Police have submitted a charge sheet against this petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120-B r/w 149 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 2. It is the allegations made against the petitioner and accused No. 1 are that on 15.04.2011 at about 12.00 in the noon when the injured by name Dhanaraj was proceeding on his motorcycle near Abhiman Studio then the accused No. 1 and this petitioner came on another motorcycle and particularly accused No. 1 with a gun shot against the injured and thereafter they fled away from the said spot. The injured was admitted to the Hospital and it appears thereafter the injured was discharged from the Hospital. The allegations made in the complaint discloses that this petitioner was with accused No. 1 in the said motorcycle. In the first information report there is no specific allegations about the over-tact of this particular petitioner-accused No. 2. This petitioner in fact, though stated as an accused in the charge sheet remained absconding. Therefore, the Trial Court has split up the charge sheet against the other accused persons. The bail order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the bail petition of this petitioner disclose that accused Nos. 1, 3 and 6 are dead. Hence, they were acquitted. Accused Nos. 5, 8, 9 are facing trial in a split up case and accused Nos. 2, 4 and 7 were also split up from the original charge sheet and separate split up charge sheet has been laid. It is observed by the Trial Court that the eye witnesses have given the version about the allegations made by the complainant. But as I have already perused the first information report, the complainant himself has not made any specific allegations or over-tact by this petitioner except stating that this person was sitting in the motorcycle in which the accused No. 1 was also travelling and accused No. 1 only shot against the complainant.

Looking to the above said circumstances, the other accused persons have already been released on bail and accused No. 1 is dead. Under the above said circumstances, merely because this accused was absconding for some time nevertheless he was arrested and he has been lagging in jail since 2011. Already more than three years have been elapsed from the date of his arrest and the documents also does not disclose that the trial has already been commenced. The trial also may take sufficient time.

Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion, this petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with S.C. No. 323/2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court-IX, Bangalore on following conditions:

1) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

2) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

3) He shall appear before the Trial Court on all future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause.

4) He shall also not to leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.