AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M G Uma, J
The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.67/2022 of Sathanur Police Station, pending in S.C.No.5024/2022 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, sitting at Kanakapura, registered for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of the India Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Sri.Shekhar M.
Heard Sri.Yogesh G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Anitha Girish, learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 02.03.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this court by filing similar petition in Crl.P.No.12501/2022, the same was came to be rejected by this court vide order dated 18.01.2023.
Learned counsel submits that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. Similar allegations were made against accused No.1, who is already enlarged on bail, as per order dated 27.09.2023, passed in Crl.P.No.3686/2023. Therefore, the present petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of parity. Petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition. He is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this court. Hence, prays for allowing the petition.
Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. It is specifically stated that petitioner had strangulated the neck of the deceased, which has resulted in his death. Considering all these facts and circumstances, the earlier petition filed by the petitioner was came to be rejected. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition.
In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:
REASONS
Earlier the petitioner had approached this court by filing Crl.P.No.12501/2022. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence, the said petition was came to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of the order dated 27.09.2023 passed in Crl.P.No.3686/2023, whereunder accused No.1 against whom similar allegations are made was enlarged on bail. There are no eye-witnesses to the incident. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason not to extend the benefit of parity to the petitioner. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.
Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.67/2022 of Sathanur Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
ii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.
If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.