RAKSHIT @ GANJAGUNDA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under

Sections 302, 201 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.349/2016. Initially FIR came to be registered against unknown

persons, but subsequently, during investigation petitioner has been arrayed as accused in the case. After completion of investigation, charge sheet

came to be filed for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 212 and 120B of IPC. The prosecution case is that Dilip and Rajashekar are the

deceased and Sri S.R.Doreswamy, Village Accountant is the complainant in this case.

The case of the prosecution as per the complaint averments that the complainant is the resident of Shanthigrama Hobli working as Village

Accountant, on 18.12.2016 when he was in his house at about 11.00a.m., he was informed that two dead bodies were floating in the canal and the

public were talking about the same. Immediately, he went near the said canal, wherein the Police as well as the public were gathered, the bodies

were floating in the canal and with the help of the people, who gathered there, the dead bodies were taken out and put by the side, they were of

the age group between 25-30 years. The particulars of the clothes worn by the deceased persons are mentioned in the complaint, there were

injuries on the dead bodies caused with deadly weapons. On the basis of such complaint, FIR came to be registered for the alleged offence.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

As per the prosecution case, C.Ws.17, 21 and 22 are the eye-witnesses to the incident. The complainant is not the eye-witness. I have also

perused the statement of the said three eye-witnesses, they have spoken with regard to the overt-act of other accused persons in assaulting the

deceased Dilip and Rajashekar and causing their death, then shifting the bodies and throwing them in the canal, but in their statements they have not

at all stated that the petitioner herein was also present and they have seen him assaulting the deceased with deadly weapon.

Perusing the statement of alleged eyewitnesses i.e., C.Ws.21 and 22, they have mentioned that they came to know that accused persons have

murdered the deceased persons, this itself clearly shows that they have not actually seen the incident, but as per the information furnished by some

other person, they came to know about the same. Though C.W.17 claims that he is the eye-witness to the incident, but his statement came to be

recorded after eight days of the alleged incident and the said delay is not properly explained by the prosecution at this stage and it is also stated

that the said witness was also an accused in a murder case, who was arrested and released on bail. Therefore, when a person having such criminal

antecedent and is an accused in a murder case, at this stage no credibility is attached to his statement and apart from that even there is a delay of

eight days in recording the statement of other witnesses also i.e., C.Ws.21 and 22. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been

filed and other accused i.e., Manjunath (A6), VijayKumar (A7), Prashant @ Gunda (A5) were already released on bail and the learned counsel

has produced the copies of the said bail orders passed in respect of the said accused persons.

The petitioner has contended that there is false implication and he never participated in the alleged incident and he has also undertaken to abide

by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Perusing the said three bail orders passed by this Court viz., order dated 01.09.2017 passed in

Crl.P.5472/2017, order dated 27.07.2017 passed in Crl.P.4573/2017 and the order dated 23.11.2017 passed in Crl.P.7500/2017 respectively,

this Court taken into consideration the entire merits of the case and ultimately allowed the petitions. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to

exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No.4 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201,

212 and 120B of IPC, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.349/2016, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one 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 has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.