Madhukara, vs The State

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable

under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. But after completion of investigation charge-sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under

Sections 341, 143, 148, 109, 120B, 302 r/w Sec.149 of IPC, registered in respondent police station Crime No.175/2017.

The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the wife of the deceased lodged a complaint on 05.05.2017 alleging that about 3 years back she

contested for Grama Panchayath election and there was a dispute between the accused No.1 and complainant''s husband since they had not

supported complainant''s husband. The deceased had assaulted brutally on accused No.1 and because of that enmity, accused persons on

05.05.2017 at about 01.30 P.M. when the deceased was moving on his motor cycle near his field they way laid the deceased and brutally

assaulted by lethal weapons like knife and sword and deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself. On the basis of the said complaint case

came to be registered firstly for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and subsequently on other offences also.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.6 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 the other materials produced in the case, so also the order of the

Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the present petitioner. On perusing the FIR, it is seen that the name of the present petitioner

Madhukara is not specifically mentioned in the FIR. I have also perused the statement of the alleged eye-witnesses CW12 and CW13 by name

Devendra Naika and Chandru. Having perused the statement of these eye-witnesses, the only allegation as against the present petitioner/accused

No.6 is that along with other accused he chased the deceased when the deceased was running in the land. Except this allegation there is no specific

allegation about any over-tact done by the present petitioner/accused No.6. The counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the order

dated 08.11.2017 in Crl.P.No.7704/2017 passed by this Court in respect of accused No.3 and another order dated 13.11.2017 in

Crl.P.No.7429/2017 passed by this Court in respect of accused No.5 and also another order dated 14.12.2017 in Crl.P.No.8984/2017 passed

by this Court in respect of accused No. 4. On perusing the order passed by this Court in respect of the said accused persons, the entire merits of

the case has already been considered by this Court. As I have already observed above, there is no specific over-tact as against the present

petitioner, except stating that he was also present and he chased the deceased. The petitioner/accused No.6 contended that he is innocent and not

involved in committing the alleged offence and that there is a false implication and he has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any reasonable

condition to be imposed by the Court. Hence, I am of the opinion it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the present petitioner/accused

No.6.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.6 is ordered to be released on bail for the alleged offences, subject to

the following conditions:

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

concerned trial Court.

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

iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.