Mohan @ Moni & Anr vs State of Karnataka

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is one more connected petition in Crl.P.No.8929/2017. Since these two petitions are in

respect of the same crime number, they are taken together to dispose of by a common order in order to avoid repetition of facts and legal aspects.

First petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 and connected petition is filed by accused No.5. Both the petitions are filed to seek release

the petitioners on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, 447 read with 149 of IPC, registered in

respondent police station in crime No. 14/2016.

The wife of the deceased is the complainant in this case. She has stated that on 16.11.2016, her husband went in the morning stating that he will

go to saloon shop to have hair cut done and he went to the saloon shop of CW2. There afterwards, the son-in-law of the complainant came and

informed that somebody assaulted her husband and caused death. Accordingly, wife of deceased lodged the complaint mentioning the names of

accused No.1 -3 i.e., Lakshman, Ajay Reddy and Mahesh. The FIR came to be registered in respect of those three accused persons.

Subsequently, they are arrayed as accused No. 4 and 5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of both the petitions so also the learned HCGP for the respondent State.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials produced in support of the case.

From theprosecution material it is seen, CW- 2, Krishnappa, owner of the saloon shop is the eye witness to the incident and his statement is

stated to have been recorded on 16.11.2016, wherein he narrated that when the deceased was getting the shave done, at that time one two

wheeler vehicle and a 4 wheeler came and stopped in front of saloon shop. Firstly, two persons came inside the saloon shop holding weapons and

there afterwards another two persons came and out of the four, he was able to identify only one person Lakshman by name and they assaulted the

person and caused injuries and committed his murder. So, as per his statement dated 16.11.2016, he named only accused-2. But the prosecution

case is that, his statement was again recorded on 20.11.2016 and on that day, it appears that he stated the presence of petitioners herein who are

arrayed as accused No.4 and 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners produced the copy of the bail order passed by this Court in respect of accused -3, on 05.12.2017 in

criminal petition No. 6670/2017. Drawing the attention of the Court to para-5 of the said bail order, learned counsel made the submission that

these aspects were discussed and considered in detail by this Court in the said bail order and ultimately the bail petition of accused -3 came to be

allowed. He submitted that in the statement dated 20.11.2016, so far as the petitioners are concerned, it is only the names of three persons which

are mentioned but there are no specific allegations or averments as to with what weapon they have assaulted. Therefore, considering these aspects

of the matter and the earlier order passed by this Court in respect of accused -3, the present petitioners/accused -4 and 5 are also standing on the

same footing. The petitioners /accused 4 and 5 have contended in the bail petition that they were innocent and not involved in committing offence,

there is a false implication and they are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Considering these

materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioners/accused 4 and 5, in both the petitions may be admitted on bail.

Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed. The petitioners-accused No.4 and 5 are ordered to be released on bail for the alleged

offences in the crime No. 114/2016, subject to the following conditions:

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

satisfaction of the concerned Court.

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

iii. Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.