Ranganatha vs State of Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.—The Petitioner is accused of having committed the murder of one Hanumantharaju, husband of the complainant Manjamma and the case is registered against the Petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC in Cr. No 164/2010.

Submission of Petitioner''s counsel is that, as per the charge sheet material, the Petitioner is said to have assaulted the deceased Hanumantharaju because the deceased used to quarrel with the Petitioner over the issue of the wife of the deceased being spoken to by this Petitioner with more closeness and this is said to be the motive for the incident which is said to have occurred on 26.7.2010 at around 8.30 p.m. and according to the prosecution, the deceased was hit on the head by this Petitioner with a stone.

Referring to the aforesaid prosecution allegations, submission made is that, except the voluntary statement of this Petitioner said to have been recorded alter 14 days on 12.8.2010, there is no other material to connect this Petitioner and even the wife of the deceased had not alleged any motive against the Petitioner and did not make any statement from 26.7.2010 till 12.8.2010. Moreover, stone is said to have been recovered from the land of some other person where the dead body was found, but it had no blood stains. Therefore, merely on suspicion, the Petitioner cannot be roped in by the prosecution.

Submission made by the learned Addl. S.P.P is that, C Ws-1 to 6 have spoken with regard to the motive and as per their statement, the Petitioner was unhappy because deceased used to question the Petitioner over the close intimacy the Petitioner alleged to have with the wife of the deceased. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for bail.

Having thus heard both sides as above, except the voluntary statement of the accused person and statement of C Ws 1 to 6 said to have been recorded on 12.8.2010, after about 14 days, and the deceased wife herself not making any statement soon after the incident before the police about any suspicion by her against the Petitioner, taking all these factors into consideration, I am of the view that the Petitioner can be released on bail by imposing conditions to safeguard the prosecution interest.

In the result, the petition is allowed by imposing the following conditions:

The Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

He shall not hamper the investigation and shall not give threat to the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

He shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m.

He shall appear before the trial court on all the dates of hearing without fail.

He shall not involve in offences of like nature in future.

If the Petitioner indulges in threatening the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner, bail would be cancelled.

The above observations however shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case at a later stage.