Nagaraj C @ Baskar & Anr vs The State of Karnataka

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 4 as per the remand application (accused Nos.1 and 2 as per the charge sheet) under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC

registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.139/2017.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant is residing at Lingarajpuram along with his family and he is working as B.M.T.C.

Driver. He has sons and one daughter from his first wife. Second son of his first wife is Ranjith, aged about 28 years. He was not going for any

work and he was roaming. The first wife of complainant died and the complainant married the second wife and got three children from the second

wife. He resides with his second wife and children. Ranjith (the son of the complainant through his first wife) studied upto 7th standard. He had

friendship with ''poli'' boys and involved in quarrels. He was residing alone at Haines Road. Ranjith was assaulted by few boys and he also

assaulted them. The cases are registered against Ranjith in Pulakeshinagar and Banaswadi Police Stations. In August 2016, Ramesh had attacked

Ranjith. In this regard, Ranjith had lodged complaint. On 05.07.2017, the complainant came home at 1.00 p.m. after finishing his duty. At 12.45,

in the mid-night, while the complainant was sleeping in his house, at that time, he received phone call from his elder daughter Smt. Asha stating that

somebody murdered Ranjith at Robertson Road. Darvin also informed him over phone. At 1.00 O''Clock, in the mid-night, the complainant gone

to Robertson Road where people were gathered and his son Ranjith was lying in the pool of blood. The complainant stated that, a person by name

Ramesh was spending time around the house of the complainant along with neighbouring boys since several years. Complainant had also seen him.

Last year, in the month of August, Ramesh had quarreled and attacked his son Ranjith. Ranjith also attacked Ramesh. After few months, friends of

Ranjith were talking that they will not leave Ramesh as he had assaulted Ranjith. The complainant kept quiet thinking that it was usual. The

complainant expressed doubt on Ramesh saying that Ramesh might have killed Ranjith because of old enmity. Accordingly, the complainant named

the said Ramesh as an assailant. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 4 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for the respondent- State.

Learned HCGP made submission that C.Ws.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the incident. They have clearly stated in their statement about the

incident and the assault made by the petitioners on the deceased. Hence, he submitted that there is prima facie material placed by the prosecution

and the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners made submission that the alleged eye witnesses are created subsequently, only to suit the prosecution case.

In this connection, the learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the contents of the remand application wherein it is stated that accused

No.2 came to be arrested on 9.7.2017. The reasons mentioned in remand application for the arrest of accused No.2 is material to appreciate the

prosecution case. There is no mention about the recording of the statement of eye witnesses (C.Ws.2 and 3). Hence, perusing the statement of the

alleged eye witnesses, there is justification in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that if really on 6.7.2017 the statement of eye

witnesses was recorded, then subsequently i.e. on 9.7.2017 when accused No.2 came to be arrested, it ought to have been mentioned that on the

basis of the statement of the C.Ws.2 and 3, accused No.2 came to be arrested. The same is not forthcoming in the remand application. The

petitioners have contended that there is false implication. Apart from that, the complainant has not raised suspicion against petitioners accused

Nos.1 and 4. But, on the contrary, he mentions specifically in the complaint that Ramesh used to come to the house, picking up quarrel with the

deceased many number of times, for many years and accordingly, he filed the complaint against the said Ramesh. In view of this material, there is

no consistency in the complaint averments and the statement of eye witnesses - C.Ws. 2 and 3. Therefore, the petitioners accused Nos.1 and 4

have made out the case to allow the petition. The petitioners have undertaken that they are ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed

by this Court. Investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet is also filed.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitionersaccused Nos.1 and 4 are ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections

120(B), 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.139/2017, subject to the following conditions:

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

concerned Court.

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

iii. Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.