GOWTHAM @ GOWTHAM RAJ Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KORA P.S. BY STATE PUBLIC

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-

police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC registered in

respondent police station Crime No.108/2017. But subsequently, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Sections 307,

302, 120B, 201, 176 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, now pending in

Spl.Case No.607/2017 on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru District.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused 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.

Looking into the case of the prosecution at the first instance it is the case of accident, accordingly, FIR came to be registered for the offence

punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC, but subsequently, after lapse of nearly 4 1/2 months, the statement of C.Ws.1 to 5 has been

recorded, wherein the case is made out that it is a murder. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this Court has already granted

anticipatory bail to accused No.1 and he produced the copy of the said order dated 22.11.2017 passed in Crl.P.8086/2017.

It is the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, but the alleged offences are also under the provisions of SC/ST

(POA) Act , therefore, in view of Section 18 of the said Act, the Court has to consider whether the materials produced in the case will make out a

case even under the provisions of the said Act. Perusing the materials at the first instance it is not at all the case of the prosecution that even the

offences are under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, but it is a clear case of accidental death. But subsequently, looking into the statement of

C.Ws.1 to 5 recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation, the alleged offence under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act came to be

inserted in the case.

The statement of C.Ws.1 to 5 prima-facie shows that it is not their personal knowledge because the people in the village were talking that it was

a murder, accordingly, they gave their statement after 4 1/2 months. Considering these aspects of the matter, the materials will not constitute the

alleged offence under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, therefore, Section 18 of the said Act cannot be a bar to entertain the petition for grant

of anticipatory bail. Even with regard to other materials, I have perused the order passed by this Court in respect of accused No.1 Karthik S., the

entire merits of the case have been considered by this Court, even including the statement under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. given before JMFC

Court, hence, petitioners herein has made out a case to allow the petition.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in

connection with Crime No.108/2017 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting

authority.

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

iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the

further investigation.

iv. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the

surety bond.