MAHESHA.V @ MAGGI & ORS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Since these two petitions are in respect of same crime and since common questions of law and facts are involved in these two petitions, they are

taken up together to dispose of them by this common order and to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and law.

Crl.P.9069/2017 is filed by petitioner/accused No.4 and Crl.P.9527/2017 is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.6 and 7, both these petitions are

filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 302, 120B read with 149 of

IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.568/2017. Deceased is one Vikram and the complainant is the wife of the deceased.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused in respect of both the petitions and also the learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

I have perused the grounds urged in both the bail petitions, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

The complainant is not an eye-witness, she was informed by some other persons. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, C.W.2-Anub S/o Jaganath is an eye-witness to the incident, whose statement is said to have been recorded on 11.10.2017. Perusing

the statement of C.W.2, no doubt, he has spoken about the presence of the petitioners herein along with other accused persons, totally 10

persons. But insofar as the overt-act is concerned, it is stated by the alleged eye-witness that accused No.2 instigated accused No.1 to eliminate

the deceased and because of that reason, accused No.1 took a hollow brick and thrown it on the head of the deceased on number of times.

No doubt, there are allegations in so far as the petitioners are concerned that they have also assaulted with their upper and lower limbs.

Petitioners have denied the allegations made in the complaint and prosecution case contending that they are innocent and there is false implication in

the case. They have undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.

I have perused the PM report. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body, has noticed seven injuries over the body of the

deceased and he gave the opinion that death was due to shock as a result of head injury sustained. Therefore, looking to these materials, I am of

the opinion that there is a prima-facie case as against accused Nos.1 and 2. Insofar as petitioners herein are concerned, though there is an

allegation that they have assaulted the deceased with their limbs, same was denied by the petitioners. Now the investigation is completed and

charge sheet has been filed. Hence, I am of the opinion that these are fit cases to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, both

the petitions are allowed. Petitioners/accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 respectively are ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 302, 120B read with 149 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.568/2017, subject to the following

conditions:

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

Court.

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

iii. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court regularly.