Raghunath vs State

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No. 2 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC registered in the respondent-police station Crime No. 83/2013.

Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that, so far as the present petitioner-accused No. 2 is concerned, there is no material placed by the prosecution to show his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. He also made submission that, according to the prosecution case, CW-2-Sampangi and CW. 3-Rajesh are the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. He made further submission that, on perusing the statements of these two witnesses, the name of the present petitioner-accused No. 2 is not at all mentioned in their statements. He also submitted that, the only material by which the prosecution wants to rely is the voluntary statement of petitioner-accused No. 2. Hence, he submitted that, the petitioner is in custody since from the date of arrest and he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court and submits that, he may be admitted to bail.

As against tills, the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that the present petitioner-accused No. 2 gave voluntary statement under which a weapon has been seized by the Investigating Officer in the presence of pancha witnesses. Hence, he submits that, there is prima-facie material placed by the prosecution. Hence submitted to reject the bail application.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, Complaint and order passed by the Lower Court on the bail application and other materials placed on record. As per the case of the prosecution, CW. 2 and CW. 3 are said to be the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. I have perused the statement of these two witnesses and the name of the present petitioner-accused No. 2 is not specifically mentioned in the said statements that they have seen the present petitioner-accused No. 2 assaulting the deceased Ashwathnarayana Shetty with a deadly weapon. Looking to the other materials, it is the prosecution case that the present petitioner-accused No. 2 gave voluntary statement under which a weapon has been seized in the presence of pancha witnesses. Only on the basis of the same, it cannot be inferred at this stage that there is prima-facie material placed by the prosecution against the present petitioner. Apart from that, this Court has already granted bail to accused Nos. 4 to 9.

In the bail petition, it is contended by the petitioner-accused No. 2 that, he is innocent and has not involved in the commission of the offences and he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has undertaken that he will abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by the Court. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that, by imposing stringent conditions to secure the presence of the petitioner to appear before the trial Court during trial proceedings, he can be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No. 2 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC, registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 83/2013, subject to the following conditions:

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and shall furnish a solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

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

iii) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.