Imran vs The State of Karnataka

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner, who is arrayed as A.4 in S.C. No. 149/2013 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Shimoga, registered for the offences under Sections 302, 397 r/w. 34 of IPC, is before this Court praying for releasing him on bail. It is the case of the prosecution, on 11.10.2012 at about 7.30 p.m. this petitioner along with three others, who are arrayed as A.1 to A.3, took the deceased Mansoor Ahmed to a vacant land situated in Sy. No. 29/1 belonging to C.W. 18 located in front of Gopala Ambika Samil coming within the jurisdiction of the respondent/police; there, after committing his murder in furtherance of their common intention by throwing a big stone on his head, took away the gold chain valued about Rs. 27,000/- and had sold the same to C.W. 14 in the case and thus have committed the aforementioned offences.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend, the case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances pressed into service are; C.W. 13 -auto driver revealing to C.W. 1--the father-in-law of the deceased on 8.2.2013 while he was taking A.1 to A.4 in his auto at about 8.00 p.m. to the effect they were discussing the murder that they have committed of the deceased. Nextly, the statement of C.Ws. 16 and 17, who are the friends of the accused and also the deceased to the effect that they had seen the deceased in the company of the accused on 11.10.2012 in the marriage of one Munavar celebrated at KSS Sabhabhavan, J.P. Nagar, Shimoga. Next circumstance is the recovery of gold chain belonging to the deceased at the instance of A.2 from the shop of C.W. 14 in the presence of panchas C.Ws. 5 and 6. He submits, initially the father-in-law of the deceased had filed a report on 18.10.2013 reporting the death of his son-in-law, upon which a case in UDR No. 61/2012 had been registered by the police against unknown persons.

That report does not reflect the participation of the petitioner, much less any of the accused herein. The present petitioner came to be arrested on 9.2.2013 after C.W. 1 filed the complaint before the police on 9.2.2013 at about 9.00 a.m. after coming to know the discussion that was made by the accused while they were going in the auto rickshaw of C.W. 13. He submits, the, material on record does not disclose any offence much less the offences alleged against this petitioner pointing towards his guilt. He is in custody since 9.2.2013. Investigation is completed. Therefore, he be released on bail.

Application filed by the petitioner is opposed by the State. The prosecution has relied upon the statements of C.Ws. 13, 16 and 17 to connect the accused in the case with the murder of the deceased. The murder according to the prosecution has taken place on the night of 11.10.2012. The statement of these witnesses has come to be recorded only after the arrest of the accused on 9.2.2013 nearly about four months after the occurrence. This itself would go a long way to place reliance on their statement. Apart from this, the strong circumstance pressed into service is the recovery of the chain belonging to the deceased at the instance of A.2 from the shop of C.W. 14 in the presence of panchas C.Ws. 5 and 6. This recovery is also made after the arrest of the accused on their information. There is no material forthcoming to show the exact involvement of this petitioner in the commission of the murder of the deceased. The circumstances that are pressed into service at this stage may not be sufficient to deny the petitioner''s request to enlarge him on bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:--

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge subject to the following conditions:--

He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

He shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing.