Manjunatha vs State

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the petitioner filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The present petition is filed on behalf of accused No. 14 relating to crime No. 203/14 on the file of the Wilson Garden Police Station. Similar bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before FTC-IV, Bangalore has been dismissed after contest on 02.09.2014 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

"7. POINT No. 1: The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is running a bakery in the name of Bramhalingeshwara Condiments at 7th Cross, Wilson Garden and as usual when he was in the bakery, on 15.06.2014 at about 7.30 PM, 8-10 persons came to his bakery and some persons were taking coffee, tea and cigarettes and some persons speaking with their mobile phones. After 10 minutes one person came near bakery, watching and immediately "Le Macha" Saravana Seena is coming and some of them called Partha, Manja, Suri and invite the Seena to the opposite bakery shop compound and talking with the said person. Thereafter some persons came to the spot and picked up quarrel with Seena and taking tools, longs kept in the autorickshaw and surrounded Seena and assaulted on his head, neck, shoulder and other parts of the body as their wish. At that time the complainant has called the police and the accused persons ran away from the spot and some persons escaped with the autorickshaw. When the police came to spot, they found Seena dead. Hence, the complainant filed complaint to take legal action against the concerned accused persons".

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no main overt act is attributed to this petitioner except attributing that he had stood near the scene of occurrence. He has requested the Court to take a lenient view and release him on bail.

Per contra, learned HCGP has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that this petitioner assisted the other accused in committing the offence of murder by watching as to whether any person would come and stop the assault. Therefore, he has argued that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for all practical purposes in view of invoking Section 149 of IPC.

After perusing the statement of CW1-Pradeep who is stated to be an eyewitness this petitioner had stood at a little distance from the place where the scene of occurrence took place. What is alleged against him by CW1 is that this petitioner and another person by name Partha had stood at a distance and were watching as to whether somebody would come and intervene. It is alleged that after the assault, some persons took away the weapons used in committing murder in an auto and left the place. It is a very important point at this stage as to whether the petitioner herein had been really a member of unlawful assembly.

Admittedly, investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner is prepared to obey any condition that may be imposed on him. Hence, the apprehension of the learned HCGP may be met by imposing proper conditions on grant of bail to the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, petition is allowed and bail is granted to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety, for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge.

(ii) He shall not tamper or attempt to tamper any of the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) He shall not give threat to the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

(iv) He shall co-operate with the IO in conducting the case.

(v) He shall appear before the jurisdictional Police Station for a period of six months on every Sunday between 9.00 am and 6.00 PM to mark his attendance.