Maruthi N vs State of Karnataka

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 323, 148, 307 r/w 149 and 114 IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.344/2017.

Brief facts of the prosecution case is that injured K.V.Jayaram is the uncle of the complainant. He is a Zilla Parishath member in Halelahalli.

There is a BDA layout. Accused No.2 S.L.V. Shekar said to have purchased a land to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas, out of 1 acre 27 guntas, the

remaining 7 guntas was left for Muneshwara Temple. Mr. S.L.V. Shekar has purchased many lands in and around, but has not paid or settled the

amount due to the villagers. Therefore, they were waiting for his arrival.

Accused No.2 said to have given this 1.20 guntas for M/s. Manjunath Developers and on behalf of the developers, one Nagaraj and many

others said to have gathered and at that time while performing pooja to Muneshwara Temple and the thrishul fixed near the temple, owner of the

land Mr. S.L.V. Shekar said to have arrived there with the petitioner and then all surrounded accused No.2 Shekar. Then accused No.2 fought

with the group of persons and asked them to go away. When the group of persons were uncontrollable, the petitioner said to have called accused

No.1 Vale Manjunath. The accused No.1 came in a car, at that juncture, the crowd tried to cover up accused No.2 Shekar, for which, he has

stated that he has no dues to be paid to anyone.

The injured-Mr.Jayaram and the people who had gathered there asked Shekar as to why he has no dues to pay anyone, then accused No.1 got

down from the car and pushed down Jayaram-injured and then the petitioner told accused No.1 to hit and kill him. The accused No.1 and another

assaulted the complainant Jayaram with an iron rod on his head, consequent upon which, he sustained injury and fell down. Then accused No.1

and others went away in a car. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered for the alleged offences.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned High Court Government Pleader, while arguing made the submission that he got the information that the injured is still undergoing the

treatment and he is on ventilation. Hence, he opposed the petition.

But, however learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made a submission that the alleged incident has taken place 21/2 months back. It is

also his submission that perusing even the contents of the complaint itself, there is no overt act by the present petitioner on the injured, but he only

instigated accused No.1 to hit the injured. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition. It is also his submission that accused No.2 and accused

Nos.4 to 7 were already granted bail by the order of the Court.

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

As it is rightly submitted in the complaint itself wherein it is mentioned that the only allegation as against the present petitioner is that he instigated

accused No.2 to hit the injured. Therefore, except that there is no other overt act by the present petitioner on the injured. The petitioner has

contended in the petition that he is innocent and has not committed the alleged offences and he has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be

imposed by this Court, the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Hence, perusing these materials, I am of the opinion that he could be enlarged on bail by imposing reasonable conditions. Accordingly, petition

is allowed. Petitioner/accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 148, 307 r/w 149

and 114 IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.344/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the concerned Court.

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

iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.