AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.Natarajan, J
CAV ORDER
This successive bail petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail in SC No.1954/2022 arising out of Crime No.60/2022 registered by Chamarajpet Police Station, Bangalore for the offence punishable under Section 381, 302, 120(B), 34 and 35 of IPC.
Heard the arguments of learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.
The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one J Prakash chand, the police registered the case against accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 381 and 302 of IPC. It is alleged that accused No.1, Bijram committed the murder of the father of the complainant and looted the gold ornaments, silver articles and cash from the house. During the investigation, the police arrested accused No.1. His voluntary statement was recorded and he was remanded to judicial custody. During the confessional statement of accused No.1, he has confessed that the petitioner herein is also involved in the said offence, who said to have given the idea for committing murder and theft from the employer of accused No.1. Accordingly, accused No.1 conspired with the present petitioner and his brother accused No.4, committed the offence and stole a huge quantity of gold and silver articles and cash. Accordingly, Rs.45,00,000/- is said to be recovered from the custody of the petitioner and his brother, based on the voluntary statement of the accused. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. His earlier bail petition came to be rejected on 29.11.2022 and once again, the petitioner is before this Court.
The learned senior counsel has contended that he is innocent of the alleged offences. He has not committed the murder. Only cash was seized from this petitioner. Therefore, there is no offence of murder or conspiracy and further contended that he is in custody for more than 2 years and 3 months and trial is not yet begun. Therefore, he is entitled for bail and he has submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jalaluddin Khan V/s Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1945, the bail shall be granted to him.
Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has seriously objected the petition. He contended that it is a serious offence of murder and the accused person is from Rajasthan. The trial is ready to start by the Trial Court. If the bail is granted, he will abscond from the case and delay the process. He may also tamper the witnesses. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Having heard the arguments, perused the records, this Court has already rejected the bail petition on the earlier occasion on merits. Once again, there is no fresh ground made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner for granting bail. It is not in dispute that Rs.45,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and his brother. The story of the prosecution reveals the accused No.1 contacted accused No.4 and in turn accused No.4 introduced accused No.2 and later, the accused No.3 also got introduced. They discussed with accused No.4 and gave the phone number of accused No.5 to get any further help from him, who is the brother of accused No.4. Accordingly, accused No.1 to accused No.5 conspired with each other and contacted through conference call. The petitioner had given the idea of committing the offence and the petitioner undertook to safeguard all the accused persons in future and the spot location was also received by this petitioner. Subsequently, on the night hours the offence was committed. Later, a huge cash was given to the petitioner and accused No.4 as their share and about Rs.45,00,000/-was recovered from the custody of the present petitioner. Total recovery from the accused was Rs.6,20,50,000/- (Rupees Six Crores Twenty Lakhs and Fifty thousand), including gold and silver articles. Which all reveals the offence committed by the accused persons is very serious in nature. Murder for gain. The bail application of co-accused is also rejected by this Court. The alleged offence is very serious one, punishable by death or imprisonment for life. Apart from that, this petitioner is from Rajasthan. If he is granted bail, he may abscond from the case and tamper with the prosecution witnesses, which may cause delay in disposal of the case by the Trial Court. Therefore, when the petitioner is involved in serious murder case, granting bail will give wrong message to the society. The CDR report is also received for conspiring together by video conference call as well as personal meetings. Such being the case, it is not a fit case for granting bail. Accordingly, following order:
ORDER
i) Petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by accused No.5 is hereby dismissed.
ii) The Trial Court is directed to speed up the trial without giving any unnecessary adjournments.
iii) The office is directed to intimate the Trial Court by a copy of this order.