K. Srinivasa Babu @ Babu vs State of Karnataka

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No. 1 in SC No. 58/2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur, registered for the offences under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC is before this Court praying to enlarge him on bail. It is the case of the prosecution, accused No. 2 in the case was in illicit connection with CW 9 - wife of the deceased - Venkateshalu. Accused No. 2 had also given some amount by way of loan to the deceased. Subsequently, the deceased had come to know about the illicit connection of accused No. 2 with his wife - CW 9. In that connection there were exchange of words between the two. It is further alleged in that connection on 10.10.2013 at about 9.00 am the deceased had attacked accused No. 2 with a knife near Koduru Cross coming within the jurisdiction of Chilamathur Police Station and had assaulted him on his hands and stabbed on his stomach, in respect of which a case in Cr. No. 70/2012 for the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC had been registered by the Chilamathur Police coming within the jurisdiction of Hindupur Taluk of Ananthapur District. In the said case the deceased had absconding himself. Police were in search for him.

Such being the position according to the prosecution accused No. 1 had given shelter to the deceased from avoiding his arrest in the said case. It is further case of the prosecution that thereafter accused No. 1 and 2 entered into a conspiracy to finish of the deceased and in that connection accused No. 2 agreed to pay supari of Rs. 35,000/- to accused No. 1 to finish of the deceased. It is further case of the prosecution that in furtherance of the said conspiracy hatched on 13.01.2013, the accused No. 1 took the deceased to Kadari and from the said place he brought him to Kokanti Cross and from there he brought him to Chakvel at about 10 p.m. At Chakvel village he took him to Maruthi Bar, where he purchased liquor and thereafter came to a hotel located near the bus stand of the said village purchased food and left Chakvel walking along with accused No. 1. He brought the deceased thereafter to Donabanda Mittada situated at Kothapalli Village. At the said place he got boozed the deceased heavily with liquor, which he had brought with him and upon consumption when deceased was sleeping in the said place at about 12.30 a.m. in the mid night, accused No. 1 committed his murder by throwing a size stone on his head and left the said place and thus the accused have committed afore mentioned offences.

The learned counsel for petitioner contends accused No. 2 has been granted bail by the jurisdictional Sessions Judge after his arrest on 08.02.2013. The present petitioner is in custody since 09.02.2013 after he came to be arrested on the said day. He submits the case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances that are pressed into service are the accused having gone to Maruthi Bar at Chakvel Village at about 10.00 p.m. on 13.01.2013 along with a person and having purchased the liquor from the said Bar as spoken to by CW 10 and CW 11, who are Cashier and Supplier working in the said Bar. Apart from this there are no other circumstances to indicate the conspiracy hatched, supari paid to accused No. 1 by accused No. 2 and deceased having been last seen after they left Maruthi Bar and before going to Donabanda Mittada situated at Kothapalli, where murder has been committed. The petitioner is in custody since February 2013 and no incriminating material has been seized at his instance. Therefore, the petitioner be released on bail.

The application filed by the petitioner is opposed by the State. As pointed out earlier the case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The only circumstances now pressed into service as submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner is this petitioner having gone to the Maruthi Bar along with a person on 13.01.2013 at about 10.00 pm situated at Chakvel Village, which is spoken to by CW 10 and 11, who are Cashier and Supplier of the Maruthi Bar, respectively. The said witnesses do not say that the accused had brought the deceased with him, on the other hand they say that a person had come along with petitioner. No recovery has been made at the instance of accused No. 1 and no material is placed to show conspiracy that has been hatched by accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 to finish the deceased and giving of supari of Rs. 35,000/- by accused No. 2 to accused No. 1. The petitioner is in custody since February 2013. Therefore, taking these facts and circumstances into consideration, I do not find any reason to decline the request of the petitioner 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 like sum to the satisfaction of the committal Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:-

i) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witness.

ii) He shall appear before the committal court and the Court of Sessions after committal, on all the dates of hearing.