Sainath vs The State

B.V. Pinto, J.—This petition is filed seeking bail in Crime No. 100/2013 of Aland Police Station registered on 13.04.2013 for the offences punishable u/s 143, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of IPC. The incident is alleged to have happened on 03.04.2013 at 10:00 p.m. FIR is registered on 13.04.2013 since the injured complainant by name Ganesh ran away from the scene of occurrence to Omerga and lodged complaint in the Omerga police station on 04.04.2013 at about 2:25 p.m. The said FIR was later on transferred to Aland police station through Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga and the same was registered on 13.04.2013. According to the complainant-Sri Ganesh, the deceased Shrishail and his friend Ambaraya were in jail in connection with theft case and that they had been released on bail and have come out during the relevant period. There was enmity between the complainant and accused in connection with the earlier murder cases, in which the rival parties were in custody for the said offences. On 03.04.2013 the complainant had gone to Bangarga village and at that time they had gone for a Dhabha in Khajuri village. The accused persons are said to have come near the said Dhaba, which is the scene of occurrence, between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. The complainant went inside the Dhabha, whereas the deceased Shrishail and another person were waiting outside the Dhabha along with their motorcycle. Both deceased Shrishail and Ambaraya were sitting on the motorcycle in front of the Dhabha, at that time some eleven persons came in two jeeps and one of them was a Bolero Mahindra jeep. It is alleged in the complaint that accused caught hold of both Shrishail and Ambaraya and assaulted them with hands and legs and tried to put them inside the jeep. The complainant came out of Dhabha and tried to object the act of the accused. At that time, the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the complainant with a small knife on the right side of his neck and caused injuries on him. The complainant thereafter escaped from the scene of occurrence due to fear of the accused and slept in field during entire night. It is stated by the complainant that the accused persons have taken away both Shrishail and Ambaraya in the Bolero jeep In the next morning the complainant went to Omerga in one truck and went to the Government hospital. There he found that some of his villagers had come to the hospital and dead bodies of Shrishail and Ambaraya were brought by those persons. There were injuries on the neck of the deceased. Thereafter he approached the Omerga police station and lodged the complaint.

During investigation it was revealed that out of eleven persons named in the FIR, A3-Goraknath, A7-Siddappa and A9-Chandappa were not at all present during the occurrence and their name has been falsely added by the complainant at the time of giving complaint. It is also transpired that two more persons by name Shrishail-A9 and Vaijanath-A10 were added while filing the charge sheet against the ten persons showing therein the petitioner as accused No. 1.

The petitioner has been arrested and he is in custody.

Sri Nandakishore Boob learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except one injury caused by the petitioner on the complainant Ganesh there are no other overt acts attributed to him in the entire incident. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The name of the accused have been fixed by the police on the basis of voluntary statements of the accused persons themselves and apart from the voluntary statements, there are no other materials to connect the accused with the crime.

Sri Nandakishore Boob, further submits that even if the voluntary statements are taken into consideration, at this stage, it is accused No. 2-Machendra and accused No. 5 Karabasappa Naroona are alleged to have dealt the fatal blow to the deceased by weapons. In any event it is his submission there is absolutely no role is played by the petitioner in the commission of murder of both the deceased. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner is a Government servant and that he would abide by any conditions that may be imposed for releasing him on bail. Hence, he submits that petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Sri S.S. Aspalli, learned HCGP on the other hand submits that the complainant has clearly mentioned that the petitioner was one among the persons who have kidnapped deceased in the Bolero jeep and that the dead bodies of the deceased was found in the field on the next day morning by the villagers and they informed mothers of both the deceased, thereafter they lifted the dead bodies and carried to Omerga Government Hospital. It is observed that both deceased were subjected to assault by sharp edged weapons and that the murder has been committed while they were in custody of the petitioner and other accused. Hence, he submits that all the accused are guilty of the offences of murder in view of citing the Section 149 of IPC by the prosecution. He also submits that petitioner may abscond or the petitioner is likely to threaten the witnesses. Hence, he submits that bail may be rejected. On careful consideration of the entire charge sheet materials it is observed that petitioner''s role is explained only in respect of an injury on the neck of the complainant by a small knife. Apart from that his involvement in the murder of both the deceased is not spoken by any of the witnesses. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail, in view of his being in custody since the date of his arrest. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge;

(ii) Petitioner shall not threaten the witnesses nor dissuade them from deposing against him; and

(iii) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any other criminal cases during the pendency of this case.