P.A. Chandru vs State

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records. The respondent-police have submitted a charge-sheet in C.C. No. 1049 of 2013 against this petitioner and others. This petitioner arrayed as accused 1 in the above said case.

The brief factual matrix of the case such as follows:

The accused 6-Mamatha and one deceased Nagaraja Reddy married each other and it is the allegation that Nagaraja Reddy had some illicit intimacy with C.W. 17. In this regard, there-was quarrel between Nagaraja Reddy and Mamatha. It is also alleged that Mamatha was ill-treated and harassed by Nagaraja Reddy. In this background, accused 1 who had intimacy with accused 6 have hatched the conspiracy by giving ATM card to accused 1 to kill the deceased Nagaraja Reddy. It is alleged that in continuance of their conspiracy, on 10-5-2013 at about 7.00 p.m., the accused persons made the deceased to drink heavily and thereafter took him to Byappanahalli Railway Station and there accused 1-the present petitioner caught hold of the deceased Nagaraja Reddy in order to facilitate i.e., accused 2 to 5 to assault the deceased with knife. Accordingly, accused 2, 3, 4 and 5 have assaulted the deceased with knife indiscriminately on the different part of the body and due to which the said Nagaraja Reddy succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, in order to make the evidence vanish, the accused persons took the dead body and laid the same on a Railway Track. Upto 23-5-2013, no clue was there to the police. When the Doctor has given his second report that the injuries which were found on the dead body were not due to the train running over the body, but they were antemortem in nature. After the post-mortem examination report, the police started the investigation on the basis of the circumstantial evidence that the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 301 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

According to the allegations of the prosecution, the overt acts have been specifically stated against accused 2 to 5 indiscriminately assaulting the deceased with knife and this petitioner was holding the deceased in order to assist the other accused persons.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. Only on the basis of the voluntary statement of the accused persons, this petitioner-accused has been arrested and interrogated.

Per contra, the learned HCGP for the State submitted that accused 1 was having strong motive to do away with the life of the deceased, apart from his participation in committing the crime. Bloodstained clothes were also recovered at the instance of accused 1. This Court cannot give any opinion as to whether the bloodstains of deceased only found on the clothes of accused 1 or not, as the FSL report is still awaited.

On the contrary, learned Counsel for the petitioner produced the order passed by this Court in Cri. P. No. 7636 of 2013 vide order dated 10-1-2014. This Court was pleased to enlarge the accused-Jagadeesha and K. Muniraju who are arrayed as accused 2 and 3 and in Cri. P. No. 2585 of 2014 one more accused-Mamatha who is arrayed as accused 6 is already been released on bail. I have carefully perused all the above said orders. This Court is of the opinion that the entire case revolves around the circumstantial evidence. It is specifically noted that there is no prima facie material and there are no reasonable grounds to believe the story of the prosecution that the accused persons have committed the allegation for the offences punishable u/s 302 of IPC. At para 5 it is also observed by this Court that the petitioner i.e. accused 5 has given voluntary statement and the Investigating Officer has also recovered the bloodstained knife, bloodstained T-shirt and pant from the said accused. Therefore, looking to above said circumstances and even it is considered that the bloodstained cloths were recovered at the instance of accused 1, he stands on the same footing as that of accused 2, 3 and 5. Therefore, in my opinion, on the ground of parity, this petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

(ii) He shall not indulge in tampering with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

(iii) He shall appear before the Court regularly on all further hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause.

(iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court till the case is disposed of.