Honnurswamy vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is a petition filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 05.06.2015 at about 6.45 a.m. accused No. 2-Chikkanna called over telephone and informed that complainant''s mother is not responding. Immediately the complainant and her husband came to the house and poured water into the bed room. However, the deceased did not woke up. Thereafter they break open the lock of grill door and door lock and went inside the room and noticed that her mother was lying and they immediately shifted her to VIMS, Ballari. The Doctor after examining her declared that she is dead. It is further averred that from 10.06.2015 the complainant and her husband went to the house of the deceased for cleaning work. On 16.06.2015 when the complainant was verifying the documents pertaining to her mother, did not get the bank pass book and cheque book and the gold ornaments were also missing It is further alleged that from 13.06.2015 the petitioner herein and accused Nos. 1 and 2 did not turn up for duty and the keys were also missing. Suspecting foul the complainant went to the bank and verified her mother''s account and came to know that on 03.06.2015, petitioner herein had drawn a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- but the said fact was not informed by her mother. Therefore, on 17.06.2015 they lodged another complaint suspecting hand of the present petitioner along with accused Nos. 2 and 3, on the basis of which a case has been registered against them for the offence punishable u/S 302 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.

I have heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No. 1 and also the learned Govt. Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that there are no independent eyewitnesses to the incident. Case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. He made submission that on 05.06.2015 as per the information furnished by the complainant herself, a case was registered in UDR No. 11/2015. But, subsequently, i.e., on 17.06.2015 complainant filed another complaint suspecting about involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence.

Learned counsel further submitted that the only allegation against the present petitioner is that when the complainant verified the bank books pertaining to her mother she found that the bank pass book and cheque book are missing When the complainant went to Pragathi Grameena Bank and on verification the Bank Manager gave information that on 03.06.2015 the present petitioner had drawn an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the account of the mother of the complainant.

Learned counsel submitted that, with regard to this aspect there is no allegation from the side of the prosecution that he forged the signature of the deceased and withdrawn the amount. But the involvement of the present petitioner is only on the basis of his voluntary statement said to have been recorded on 20.06.2015 immediately after his arrest.

Learned counsel further submitted that, even if the voluntary statement of the present petitioner is considered, there is no allegation or averment that he actually participated in committing murder of the deceased. Even according to the voluntary statement also it goes to show prima facie that accused Nos. 2 and 3 who went inside and committed murder of the deceased and they came out of the house. In fact, accused Nos. 2 and 3 informed the present petitioner that they committed murder of the deceased. Hence, these allegations will not make a prima facie case against the present petitioner about his involvement in committing the offence. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed and hence learned counsel submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioner can be enlarged on bail.

Per contra learned Govt. Pleader submitted that even though there are no direct eyewitnesses to the incident and case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence but the important circumstance in this case clearly goes to show that there was a conspiracy between all the accused in committing murder of the deceased. She also submitted that when the bank account of the deceased was verified it was noticed that accused No. 1-present petitioner drawn an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from her account and when the investigating officer also verified account of the present petitioner there was an amount of Rs. 4,34,000/-. Hence, she submitted that this prima facie goes to show that the amount withdrawn has been credited into the account of the present petitioner. She also submitted that so far as the gold ornaments are concerned, they are with the custody of accused No. 2 who is absconding. Hence, she submitted that the circumstance about which the material has been collected by the I.O. during the investigation make out a prima facie case against the present petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, contents of FIR, complaint and also the remand application produced along with the petition so also I have considered order of rejection of the bail petition by the learned Sessions Judge, Ballari.

Looking to the material placed on record so far as the factual matrix of the case is concerned as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, on 05.06.2015 information was furnished to the Police by the complainant at the first instance and on the basis of which a case was registered in UDR No. 11/2015. Subsequently, i.e., on 17.06.2015 again second complaint has been filed by the complainant raising suspicion about the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offence.

Looking to the material placed on record it is seen that the basis for the prosecution is his own voluntary statement wherein it is stated that he has withdrawn the amount from the account of the deceased. Out of that amount some amount has been credited into his name but so far as the main incident to commit murder of the deceased is concerned, even on perusing the voluntary statement it transpires that the present petitioner has not participated in committing murder of the deceased. It is only accused Nos. 2 and 3 who alleged to have been committed murder of the deceased. But, so far as the contention of the learned Govt. Pleader is concerned, that there was conspiracy between three persons, which is a matter of proof after recording evidence during the course of trial. Only on the basis that some amount is found credited to the account of the present petitioner it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail when the prosecution case rests only on the circumstantial evidence. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions the petitioner can be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the following order is passed.

Petition is allowed. Petitioner-accused No. 1 is ordered to be released on bail of the alleged offences subject to the following conditions.

"1) The petitioner to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

2) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witness directly or indirectly.

3) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly."