Sri Avinash @ Gundu vs The State

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it is stated by the learned Government Pleader that the investigation is yet to be completed and that he would require some to file his statement of objections. It is seen from the material that is available on record that the petitioner has been kept in custody on a mere suspicion and nothing more. The facts stated are as follows:

One Rudrappa. had lodged a complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ''IPC'' for brevity), against unknown persons. In the complaint itself, he had stated that he was an agriculturist having three daughters and two sons. Among them the deceased Thippanna @ Rajashekhar was his eldest son; that on 4.7.2012, at about 10.00 a.m., deceased Rajashekhar and his mother had gone out on their daily chores and had returned by about 3.00 p.m. and after that, he had seen his son standing near the Ratkal bus stand at 6.00 p.m. It transpires that the deceased had informed his younger brother Gundappa that he was at Nagoor village and would come late in the night, and he had asked him to keep one bed ready for him at the place of one Arya However, it transpires that the next morning, that the bed had remained unused and when the deceased was called on his mobile/cellular phone, it was switched off But, the deceased Rajashekar had received a call on his cellular phone when he was on the land of one Padashett On 9.7.2012, that is five days later, it was informed that a dead body tied up in a gunny bag was found floating in the well of one Subhaschandra and the dead body was identified as the deceased son of the complainant and it is in that background that the complaint was lodged. However, on the allegation that the petitioner had made an incriminatory statement before the police that he, along with his friends, had done the son of the complainant to death, for the reason that the deceased was having an affair with the petitioner''s sister and in spite of being warned not to have anything to do with her, the deceased had continued to do so, and therefore, the petitioner and his friends had invited the deceased to a drinking session and had done him to death, and had disposed of the body in the well of Subhaschandra, where it was later found.

On the above allegations and sequence of events, the petitioner has been kept in custody. The petitioner having approached the court below seeking enlargement on bail, the court below has rejected the petition on the ground that there was prima facie evidence with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence which was of a serious nature and therefore, has refused the petition.

From the above sequence of events, it cannot be said that there was clinching evidence which incriminated the accused nor can it be said with certainty that the petitioner was involved in the commission of the offence. Admittedly, there are no other accused who have been taken into custody. It is the mere allegation that the petitioner was peeved with the involvement of the deceased with his sister, which was the only cause for the commission of the offence. That by itself, will not be prima facie evidence to reject the petitioner''s application for bail. Admittedly, the investigation itself is not complete. Therefore, there is no warrant to detain the petitioner in custody, in the above circumstances. However, if after complete investigation there is adequate material to implicate the petitioner, it is then possible that further action could be taken against the petitioner, but not at the present stage and certainly not on the material that is sought to be ranged against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a self-bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with a solvent surety for a likesum, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below, without the leave of the court.

The petitioner shall offer all co-operation with the investigation of the offence.

He shall not in any manner, seek to tamper with the prosecution evidence.