Shreyash @ Magadi vs State of Karnataka

P.V. Pinto

This petition is filed seeking bail in. Crime No.78/2011 of Rameshipalya police station, Bangalore City registered on 11.02.2011 for the offences punishable U/s. 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w Sec 149 of IPC.

It in the case of the prosecution that, on 11.02.2011 at about 10.30 a.m., deceased Vishwanatha @ Vishwa was done to death in front of the house of the complainant and that the petitioner and others have participated in the said assault. The petitioner was arrested on the basis of the statement of Accused No.1 namely Muniraju @ Muni, who was arrested earlier. After investigation charge sheet has been filed.

Heard Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, learned HCGP for the State/Respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the name of the petitioner is not found in the FIR and even at the time where the inquest was held, petitioner''s name was not mentioned. Therefore, he submits that, petitioner is entitled for bait.

The learned HCGP on the other hand submits that, there are three eye witnesses to the incident namely CW.10-Dilip Kumar, CW.11-Raghavendra @ Raghu and CW.12-Dayananda and all of them have identified the petitioner as one of the assailants. Therefore, even though there is no identification parade conducted, the petitioner has been clearly identified by the eye witnesses in the police station. CW.10 to CW.12 have given statements on the same day. Hence; petitioner is not entitled for bail.

The learned HCGP further submits that, blood stained cloths has been recovered from the petitioner and the FSL report indicates the involvement of the petitioner. He further submits that, petitioner is a habitual offender and that there are four heinous cases pending against him and that the petitioner is a rowdy sheeter of kamakshipalya police station.. Hence, he submits that, application of the petitioner may be rejected.

Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, Accused No.3, Chikkaanna, whose participation is also spoken by the prosecution witnesses has been granted bail. Hence, petitioner is also entitled for bail.

This Court while allowing the bail application of Accused No.3 has stated that, on perusal of the statement of three eye witnesses name of only Muniya is disclosed and that there is no reference to the said petitioner Chikkanna and also the names of any other accused persons either by name or on physical feature has been mentioned.

Without further discussing on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for bail.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed, The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below and subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall appear before the police station once in 15 days for a period of three months and thereafter, once in a month till disposal of the case.

ii) The petitioner shall not involve himself in any other case and if it is found that, the petitioner is indulging in such activity, the State is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail and the Court before whom such an application is filed is at liberty to cancel the bail without reference to this Court.