Prakash vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana

The petitioner arraigned as accused No. 11 in Crime No. 196/2012 of Kallambella Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302 R/w. Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of Prevention of Atrocities (SC/ST) Act 1989, has sought for an order to enlarge him on bail. According to the case of prosecution, one Sri C. Lingappa, a lawyer by profession practicing in Tumkur and residing in Dodda Agrahara Village of Sira Taluk was murdered near Jai Mata Dhaba, situated at Marulappanahalli Gate, at about 10.00 p.m. on 16.10.2012. Rajanna the younger brother of deceased Lingappa, was informed about this incident by the owner of the said Dhaba Sri Kantharaju, over phone. Immediately, the said Rajanna came to the scene of occurrence and saw his brother lying in a pool of blood. He shifted the injured to the District Hospital, Tumkur, where, he succumbed to the injuries at about 12.45 in the mid night. Thereafter, at about 4.00 a.m. the said Rajanna lodged a report about the incident as informed to him by the said Kantharaju. Based on the said report, police registered the case and took up investigation. In the complaint, the complainant had alleged that, the petitioner and his associates were nursing ill-will against his brother in the background of the village panchayath election of Dodda Agrahara Village and this petitioner had proclaimed that the deceased would be eliminated and therefore, at the instance of the petitioner, the deceased has been murdered. Therefore, in the FIR registered by the police, the petitioner had been arraigned as Accused No. 1. Thereafter, during the investigation, the statement of Kantharaju owner of Jai Matha Dhaba and statements of one Kumar working as supplier in the said Dhabha, one Mahesh resident of Dodda Agrahara Village were recorded and those statements prima facie revealed that the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence. Their statements disclosed the presence of Thimmaraju, Shridhar, Lokesh, Taranath another Thimmaraju, Shivaraj, Ramesh, Chandrappa, Sidalingapa and Ravi. On that base the aforesaid persons were arraigned as A1 to A10 while the petitioner was arraigned as A11. During investigation this petitioner along with others was arrested and later subjected to judicial custody. The application filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, for grant of bail came to be rejected. Therefore, he is before this Court.

The petition is opposed by the respondent -State.

I have heard both the sides. Perused the records made available.

As noticed supra the complainant was not an eye witness. He said to have reached the scene of occurrence after being informed by Kantharaju, owner of Dhaba. According to the complainant, the owner of the said Dhaba gave him the details of the incident. On that basis the complainant disclosed the names of certain assailants. However, the statements of said Kantharaju and others, who are stated to be eye witnesses to the incident, prima facie indicates that this petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence and he did not participate in the actual incident of assault. The overtact alleged against the petitioner is that on 14.10.2012 there was a meeting in the house of this petitioner in the background of election for the post of president and vice president of Grama Panchayath and the deceased had also attended the said meeting and in that meeting the petitioner had given life threat to the deceased and then instigated other accused persons to commit murder of the deceased and that he would take care of the consequences. Thus, at this stage, the materials on record prima facie does not indicate that, the petitioner is guilty of any offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 196/2012 of Kallambella PS on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court subject to further conditions that,

i) The petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case.

iii) The petitioner shall appear before the I.O., as and when required and cooperate with the I.O in the investigation of the case.

iv) The petitioner shall mark his attendance in the respondent - Police Station, on every Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. till the filing of the final report.

v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without express permission thereof.