AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawad Rahim, J.—Petitioners herein who are ranked as accused Nos. 1, 6 and 2 in Crime No. 135/2012, are facing charge for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 302, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The prosecution case is based on the report of a boy - Rakesh Ramu Putani, aged 15 years, who is now arraigned as accused No. 10, in which he alleged that, at 11.30 pm on 16.05.2012 when his grand father Shivappa was sleeping near the borewell, the petitioners herein along with others reached there armed with axes. Beerappa - Accused No. 4 is said to have held the legs of Shivappa, while Mayappa and others using axe caused fatal injuries resulting in death of Shivappa. He also alleged that, accused had colluded with Mayappa and others to commit the murder of two sons of Shivappa regarding which Shivappa lodged a report and a case was registered. The first accused Vithal and others were facing trial for the murder of the sons of Shivappa in S.C. No. 104/2010. They were trying to subdue Shivappa from tendering the evidence against them in that case. With that motive, as he did not heed to their request, they planned to kill him. It is further alleged that, accused No. 7 - Mayappa, accused Nos. 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 who are accused in that case have joined with Vithal to commit the crime. The prosecution therefore has implanted motive in the mind of the petitioners and others to do away with the life of Shivappa to deter him from tendering evidence in the pending case.
As far as the petitioners are concerned, they are not the accused in S.C. No. 104/2010, but have shown to be accomplice of the prime accused Vithal to commit the crime. This Court taking into consideration all attending circumstances has granted bail to the co-accused, namely accused No. 4 - Beerappa, but rejected bail application of accused No. 7 - Mayappa vide common order in Criminal Petition No. 11398/2013 and 11399/2013 dated 28.10.2013.
In the present proceedings, first petitioner Vithal is also accused in S.C. No. 104/2013 and it is he who attacked Shivappa. However, it is seen during further investigation, they have collected information revealing that, accused No. 10 - Rakesh, who was the complainant in the first instance, was the one who had approached these accused to commit the murder of his grand father suspecting his grand father had illicit intimacy with his mother. Therefore, initially the impression that, the first petitioner and others had planned to commit murder of Shivappa to dissuade him from tendering evidence against him in S.C. No. 104/2010 was not actually the motive. But the motivation was to kill Shivappa to prevent him to continue to have illicit intimacy with his daughter-in-law - CW17. In the circumstances, what we have to consider is the overt acts of each individual. When we do that, we notice that the first petitioner - Vithal, though ranked as accused No. 1 in the present case, who is also accused in S.C. No. 1.04/2010, has not acted violently and his acts are similar to the acts of petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 11398/2013, who has been granted bail. Similarly, the other petitioners are also alleged to have watched the commission of offence. In this view, they have to be treated similarly at par with Beerappa - petitioner in Crl.P. 11398/2011 and thus they are entitled to bail.
The petition allowed. The petitioners shall be released on bail subject to following conditions:
i. Each of the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution material or prevail upon witnesses by any means.
iii. Petitioners shall not leave the Sessions jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.