SRI.SHARATH KUMAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under

Sections 392, 201 and 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC, registered in respondent - police station in Crime No.132/2016.

Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 29.07.2017 at 9.00 a.m. while the complainant was plying his auto rickshaw on Bannerghatta

Road, near A.M.C. College, at that time Bannerghatta Police Dinesh came and informed that a dead body similar to his relative Shabari Girish is

lying on the road at the compound of Ravi Reddy on Tulip Road. Somebody has killed him on the spot for some reason. He asked the

complainant to come and identify the dead body. Accordingly, the complainant along with his friend and relative Balaraj came near Tulip Resort at

9.20 a.m. and saw the dead body of his brother-in-law Shabari Girish. On the basis of the said complaint, firstly FIR came to be registered as

against accused Nos.1 and 2.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the submission that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. Case of the prosecution rests

on the circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that circumstances said to have been collected during the investigation also will not make out a

prima-facie case against the petitioner herein. Hence, he submitted that petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing reasonable condition.

Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent made the submission that there is motive for committing the alleged offence. He also made a

submission that during the investigation, voluntary statement of the present petitioner came to be recorded wherein at his instance blood stained

clothes and weapons used for committing the offence were recovered in the presence of panch witnesses. Hence, he submitted that there is

material as against the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

Complainant is not eye-witness to the incident. I have also perused the statements of CWs.8 and 10. Looking to their statements recorded

during the inquest mahazar, they are also not witnesses to the incident because in the last paragraph of their statement they also stated that accused

persons might have committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, they also expressed doubt that it is the petitioner/accused No.1 might have

committed the murder of the deceased. It is true that during the investigation, I.O. stated to have recorded the voluntary statement of the present

petitioner and at his instance, blood stained clothes and also the weapons used to commit the alleged offence stated to have been recovered in the

presence of panch witnesses. But only on that basis, it cannot be said that petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Investigation is completed

and charge-sheet is also filed. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 392,

201 and 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in Crime No.132/2016, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.