Manjunatha @ Bethengere Manja vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 109, 120(B) and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance Act registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 581/2010. Brief facts as per the averments in the complaint are that on 03.07.2010, Nandish, Govindaraju, Sathish, Naveena, Lawyer Ravi and others in all, twenty persons, went to the house of CW-6 Hyadalu Manja, they all went to Garden Land of Giddenahalli Ravi to have party. After feast, while returning in two Scorpio Cars and Alto Car and in the Scorpio Car of Manja, the deceased lawyer Ravi was the driver. When they were going near Sondekoppa, the Alto car and Harsha''s Scorpio car were going ahead. The Scorpio car of Manja was moving back. Then from back, one TATA Sumo car came and way laid Scorpio Car of Manja, sudden fire was shot and the deceased lawyer Ravi was dragged but he escaped and ran away. Like that, the other persons by name Nandeesha, Vinay, K. Sathisa and complainant Putta ran away. Then those 8-10 persons armed with longs were assaulting them. Lawyer Ravi sustained injuries and died. The complainant Putta and CWs-2 to 4 were taken to Harsha Hospital for treatment and got admitted. In the hospital, Putta gave the complaint suspecting the hand of Bettangere Manja and 8-10 others. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner even according to the prosecution case is that while the petitioner was in the jail, it is he who instigated and conspired other accused persons to finish off C.W.6 as he was having enmity against the said Manja. It is submitted that even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner has not actually participated in the alleged offence. The allegation against the other accused persons 2 to 15 is that they have participated in the alleged offence and committed the murder of the deceased. He submitted that though serious allegations were made against the other accused persons that they have committed the murder of the deceased using deadly weapons and they are all released on bail by the order of this Court. The learned Counsel submitted that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also released on bail by the order of this Court in Crl.P. No. 6391/2013 dated 27.11.2013 on the allegations that they committed the murder of the deceased using deadly weapons. Therefore, the present petitioner against whom no such allegations are there except the allegation of conspiracy and instigation, he may be granted bail by imposing reasonable conditions.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the petitioner is the main accused and even while he was in jail, he used to meet the other accused persons and there were conspiracy to finish off C.W. 6 Manja, who was the targeted person. He submitted that the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during investigation goes to show about the said conspiracy as well as abetment by the present petitioner to the other accused persons. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, charge sheet and the other materials on record. I have also perused the order passed by this Court in respect of accused Nos. 2 and 3, wherein it has been observed that bail has been granted to the main accused persons and hence on the ground of parity, accused Nos. 2 and 3 are also entitled to be released on bail. The investigation of the case is already completed and charge sheet has been filed in the matter. Looking to the materials on record and the allegations made even according to the prosecution against the petitioner who was said to be taken to the custody by issuing body warrant on 25.9.2010 and as still he is in jail, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner on merits as well as on the ground of parity. Accordingly, the petition is allowed the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 109, 120(B) and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act and Sections 3 arid 4 of Explosive Substance Act registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 581/2010, subject to following conditions:--

I. The petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) and shall offer a surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court.

II. The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

III. The petitioner shall attend the concerned Court regularly.