Santhu and Others vs State

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

The petitioners are said to be accused Nos. 1 to 3 and are accused of the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 341, 302 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

According to the complainant one Sampath who was a medical representative along with his friend Naveen Kumar @ Neelu and others had dinner together at a bar at Kotakkal village and had left the bar. The deceased Neelaiah Poojari went by his car and the complainant was said to be following him on his motorcycle. And when they reached Madyar junction in Mangalore, it transpires that accused No. 1 and others came in another car and are said to have stopped the vehicle of the deceased near Madyar junction and accused No. 1 is said to have damaged the window glass of the car of the deceased and when the deceased alighted from the car he is said to have been attacked by all the other persons accompanying accused No. 1 with swords, or talwars, all over his body resulting in 24 injuries to the deceased and he had collapsed on the spot. It is on the basis of the said complaint that the accused have been taken into custody, four days later, and the proceedings have been initiated against them. Their application for bail has been rejected by the court below having regard to the circumstances and the manner in which the death of Neelaiah Poojari has occurred.

The learned counsel would contend that though the complainant claims to be an eye witness the same is extremely doubtful and further notwithstanding that the complainant was able to identify all the accused and narrate the incident to the police the police have not immediately arrested the accused and they were taken into custody only four days later and on the mere statement of the complainant who was said to be a close friend of the deceased. The deceased did not have a good reputation and he was alleged to be a rowdy element against whom there was several cases pending. Therefore, the petitioners have been mechanically implicated on the footing that they had indeed committed the murder. It is pointed out that one of the accused namely Jagga who was said to be accused No. 4 was granted bail by this court in Criminal Petition No. 1852/14 dated 5.11.14 and it is also pointed out that the allegations against that accused and the present petitioner were identical and hence by a parity of reasoning, the petitioner would also be entitled to bail. Though the learned Government Advocate would oppose the petition, given the circumstances of the case the petitioners are also entitled to bail on the same reasoning as was applied in the above petition by this court.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

"(i) The petitioners shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one solvent surety each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below.

(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

(iii) The petitioners shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing.

(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without prior permission."