Shambulinga @ Shambu vs State

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner, who is arrayed as A4 in SC No. 78/2013 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore sitting at Anekal, registered for the offence u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC, is before this Court praying for releasing him on bail. It is the case of the prosecution the deceased Naveen Kumar and the accused in the case are friends. Some time prior to the present occurrence, which took place on 06.09.2012, a quarrel had ensued between A1 and the deceased. On account of the same, there were differences between the two. A1 subsequently had informed the same to the other accused in the case. Accordingly, it is the case of the prosecution, A1 along with A2 and A3 were nursing grudge against the deceased Naveen Kumar.

Such being the position, on 06.09.2012, at about 4.45 p.m. the deceased along with his wife Suma were proceeding to Jigani in search of a job on the Scooter ridden by the deceased. On the way, the Scooter came to a halt on account of exhaustion of fuel near the garage of CW 3 situated at Indlawadi cross. Thereafter, the deceased parked his scooter near the garage of CW 3 and took a TVS from the said garage and proceeded to Surujakkanahalli in order to bring fuel to his scooter While he was near the shop of CW 2-Noorsab situated at Surujakkanahalli at about 4.45 p.m. along with his wife CW 1, three persons came on a motor cycle, stopped their TVS and among the said three persons two persons assaulted the deceased Naveen Kumar with lethal weapons, on account of which, he sustained fatal injuries and died at the spot. Thus, the accused have committed the aforementioned offences.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends the allegations in the first information reveal initially three persons came in a motor cycle near the shop of CW 3 where the scooter ridden by the deceased came to a halt on account of exhaustion of fuel. At the said place quarrel ensued between the deceased on the one hand and the said three persons on the other hand in which the deceased assaulted A1. Thereafter, the deceased left the shop of CW 3 by taking a TVS with the permission of CW 3 to bring fuel to his scooter from Surujakkanahalli along with his wife CW 1. While he was near the shop of CW 2 at Surujakkanahalli, three persons came in a motor cycle among them two of them assaulted the deceased with lethal weapons, due to which, he sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to the same at the said place.

It is also the case of prosecution, the said occurrence apart from having witnessed by CW 2, the statement of CW 3 reveals a quarrel had ensued between the deceased on the one hand and accused on the other hand near the garage of CW 3 initially around 4.30 p.m. Thus, the accused have committed the aforementioned offence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends in the first information filed by the wife of the deceased it is stated three persons had come initially near the shop of CW 3 and among them A1 was assaulted by the deceased. He further submits thereafter when the deceased along with CW 1 were near the shop of CW 2 at Surujakkanahalli, three persons came in a motor cycle and among them two of them assaulted the deceased with lethal weapons and committed his murder. He submits the first information does not spell out the name of this petitioner having been present either near the shop of CW 3 or near the shop of CW 2. He further contends though CW 2 takes out the name of this petitioner as the assailant of the deceased near his shop, he has come out with the said version about two months ten days after the occurrence. That delay would go a long way to place reliance on his statement. He submits though the Investigating Officer has recovered a Long at the instance of this petitioner, it is falsified from the statements of the eyewitnesses and the complainant, which reveals the persons who had assaulted the deceased had thrown the weapons at the said place. The petitioner is in custody since 14.09.2012. Therefore, in the circumstances, he be released on bail.

Learned HCGP opposed the application filed by the petitioner.

The material now on record does not disclose that this petitioner was present either near the shop of CW 3 where the first occurrence took place in as much as the deceased assaulting A1 or at the place where the murder was committed near the shop of CW 2. Though CW 2 has implicated this petitioner as an assailant of the deceased, he has come out with the said version about two months ten days after the occurrence. It would go a long way to rely on his statement. The recovery, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner is falsified from the statements of witnesses which goes to show the assailants had thrown the weapons at the said place. As the petitioner is in custody since 14.09.2012 and as the case is now pending before the Sessions Judge, in the circumstances, I do not find any justification to decline the request of the petitioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1) The petition is allowed;

2) The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Judge subject to the following conditions:-

i) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

ii) He shall attend the court on all the dates of hearing.