Rajesh vs State of Karnataka

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the Respondent State and perused the records.

The petitioner is Accused No. 2 in Crime No. 345/2013 on the file of Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City. After conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the concerned Court and is registered as SC No. 527/2014 for offences punishable under sections 302, 201 and 120[B] r/w. 34 of IPC. He has been in judicial custody since April 2014.

Charge sheet has already filed after completing investigation. It is alleged that accused No. 1 S. Shivakumar @ Shivanna is running a Wine Shop in the name and style of "Shiva Wines" at No. 37/1, Mysore Road, Bangalore. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 and CW2 were working under accused No. 1. Deceased Venkatesha, the brother of CW1 was working as Pigmy Collector in Karnataka Bank, Minerva Circle Branch, Bangalore and the deceased was also collecting pigmy amount from accused No. 1. It is alleged that accused No. 1 used to borrow loan from the deceased on several occasions and was unable to repay the alleged loan amount and hence accused No. 1 had hatched a plan to commit murder of the deceased Venkatesha, the pigmy collector. In this regard accused No. 1 asked his servant accused No. 5 to call accused Nos. 2 to 4 to his Wine Shop and accordingly accused Nos. 2 to 4 came to the Wine Shop of accused No. 1 on 4.2.2013 at about 2.00 p.m. and at that time accused No. 1 told to accused Nos. 2 to 4 to kill the deceased assuring them that he would pay supari to the said task.

It is further alleged that, in order to cause disappearance of evidence of intended crime, accused No. 1 had switched off the Close Circuit TV and he also made preparation for the alleged crime by collecting deadly weapons like long and chopper in his Wine Shop and on the same day, accused No. 1 asked the deceased to come to his Wine Shop at about 2.00 p.m., promising him to repay the loan amount to him. Accordingly at about 2.00 p.m. on the same day deceased came to the Wine Shop of accused No. 1 and while the deceased Venkatesha entering the said Wine Shop, accused Nos. 2 to 4 also followed the deceased and by that time accused No. 6 closed the shutters of said Wine Shop and in the meanwhile deceased, while counting the amount given to him by accused No. 1, saw accused Nos. 2 to 4 and hence the deceased tried to escape from the very scene. At that juncture, accused No. 1 told accused Nos. 2 to 4 to kill the deceased and at that time, accused Nos. 2 to 4 brutally assaulted on the deceased by means of long and chopper and thereby they committed the murder of deceased Venkatesha.

It is alleged that the deceased had come to the said Wine Shop in his Hero Honda Motor Cycle and the same had been parked at Railway Station of Bangalore. They left the same along with its key and after that accused No. 1 told accused Nos. 5 and 6 to clean the blood stains found on the floor of his Wine Shop and accordingly, the blood stains were make to disappear.

The learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that prima facie case is forthcoming against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was involved in the murder of Venkatesha and he had assaulted Venkatesha along with Accused Nos. 3 and 4 in the wine shop of Accused No. 1. He has relied upon the order passed by this Court in Crl. P. No. 5542/2014 dated 28.10.2014 under which bail application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed after contest.

Accused No. 3 Sendhil Kumar who had allegedly joined Accused Nos. 2 and 4 in murdering Venkatesha has been released on bail in Crl. P. No. 146/2015. Petitioner has undertaken to obey any condition which may be imposed by this court. Fatal blow was dealt with by Accused No. 4 only. In the light of similarly placed accused, petitioner is to be released on bail.

Thus, the apprehension of the learned Government Pleader could be suitably met with by imposing proper conditions. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, I pass the following:--

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

Petitioner is to be enlarged on bail, in S.C. No. 527/2014 on the file of Presiding Officer, FTC [Sessions] - XI, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions:

"(i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), with a solvent surety, for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) Petitioner shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

(iv) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities;

(v) Petitioner shall attend the Respondent Police Station on every Sunday of the month between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. without fail, till the case registered against him is disposed of from the date of his release."

Ordered accordingly.