Murali vs State

B.V. Pinto

This petition is filed seeking bail in Crime No.22/2011 of Vijayapura. police station registered on 07.02.2011 for the offences punishable U/s. 302 and 201 of IPC. Police have conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against three persons including the petitioner who is shown as Accused No.1 for the offences punishable U/s. 120-B, 302, 201 r/ w Sec 34 of IPC.

The complaint was lodged on 07.02.2011 by one Kishore Kumar, brother of the deceased, Ghandrashekhar alleging that, on 06.02.1011 at about 7.30 p.m., deceased has gone out of the house and has not returned. On 07.02.2011, at about 9.30 a.m., when the complainant went to the police station to give complaint regarding missing of his brother, it was disclosed that, dead body of a mate person aged about 55 to 60 years was found near the Bullaballi railway gate. On verification, it was found that the dead body is that of the deceased, Chandrashekhar, On registration of the complaint for the offence of murder, investigation commenced. During investigation, police have recorded the statement of one Shivanna, who has stated that, on 06.02.2011, petitioner was found driving the auto rickshaw in which the deceased was sitting. Police have further questioned one Sri. Neelakantappa, who has seen the deceased in the auto rickshaw on the date of offence. Both. Shivanna and Neelakantappa have identified the auto rickshaw in which the deceased and accused were going on the basis of the advertisement put on the auto rickshaw. The said auto rickshaw has been seized and its owner has claimed the auto rickshaw. It is further that one shopkeeper has stated that, on 06.02.2011). at about 6,00 p.m., this petitioner and others had purchased a razor blade from the shop. The auto rickshaw has been seized in which blood stains were found.

Heard Sri. B. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned HCGP for the State/Respondent.

The learned. counsel for the petitioner submits that, the circumstances above narrated are not sufficient to hold that, the petitioner has committed murder of the deceased.

The learned HCGP on the other hand submits that, strong circumstances that, petitioner was'' seen in the company of the deceased immediately prior to the date of murder on 06.02.2011 and the fact that said statement is corroborated by one neelakantppa who has also stated that the deceased was seen in the company of petitioner indicates that, the petitioner is invoked in the murder of the deceased, it is further stated that, circumstances that petitioner had purchased the blade in the shop of Shivanna further corroborates the participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offence.

The teamed counsel for the petitioner submits that, witness Neelakantappa in his statement, after arrest of the accused has stated before the. police that, he cannot certainly say that the petitioner himself is the person involved in the offence but the person who was driver of the auto-rickshaw along with the deceased appears to be of the same appearance. Hence, he submits that there in reasonable doubt regarding involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence.

The motive for the commission of the offences is that, deceased was having rivalry regarding silk business and that the petitioner at the relevant time was carrying cash and that the petitioner had taken ban for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the deceased.

It appears that the circumstances are very strong against the petitioner, However, having regard to the fact that, Neelakantappa does not state in unequivocal terms that, it is the petitioner who was driving fee vehicle, I am of the opinion that, petitioner is entitled for relief of bail.

Accordingly, the petition allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing personal baud for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction. of the Court below and subject to following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses nor induce them to depose against the prosecution.

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any other cases and if it is found that the petitioner is indulging in other cases, the State is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail and the Court before which such an application is filed shall be at liberty to cancel the bail without reference to this Court.

The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of the bail petition and the learned Sessions Judge shall not be carried away by the observations made herein at the time of disposal of the case.