Thippareddy vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner - additional accused u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent - police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable u/s 304-A of IPC and u/s 27 of the Indian Arms Act and subsequently for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120(B), 302, 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and also Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered by the respondent - police in Crime No. 34/2012, now pending in S.C. No. 13/12 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kolar.

The brief facts of the prosecution case that one Vasanthakumar, son of the deceased was working as JCB Driver and he had got three brothers and one sister and he is residing with his parents in Janugutte village. The father of the complainant was coolie and having a gun since from the time of his grand father. His father used to take gun for hunting. While working as JCB Driver with one Thippareddy i.e., petitioner herein used to come to his house once in 15 days or a month. On 26-02-2013, when he came to his house at about 9.30 p.m. his mother was not in the house and informed that his mother had been to Mulabagilu to her sister''s house. Then his sister informed the complainant stating that her father left the house in the morning carrying gun and due to gun something is happened and further told that her father fell down near a temple. He consoled his sister and went there and at some distance to Nalluramma Temple, he has noticed that his father had fallen down and dead. By his left a mobile and gun was fallen down. His father had a practice of consuming alcohol and it appears in an intoxication, went for hunting and it appears due to his negligence there was a misfire, due to that fire his father might have died. He was cordial with all the villagers and complainant had no doubt against anybody and prays for action. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered and police took up the investigation.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - additional accused herein and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that even looking to the complaint filed by the son of the deceased at the first instance it goes to show that the present petitioner is totally unconnected with the alleged offences. He made further submission that even thereafter also when the investigation was conducted, it was completed and charge sheet has been filed only against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and even in the charge sheet there was no whisper by any of the witnesses about the involvement of the present petitioner. Learned counsel made the submission that it was only when the Sessions Case was put for a trial and when the complainant -Vasanthakumar and his sister have been examined before the trial, during the course of examination the complainant and his sister have stated altogether a new story and on the basis of that, the police have sought the permission to further investigate into the matter and after investigation now they have filed the charge sheet instigating the present petitioner also in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, counsel submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent and there is no prima-facie material to show his involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, submitted to allow the petition.

As against this, the learned Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that looking to the oral evidence of Vasanthakumar and his sister before the Court, on oath they have deposed before the Court and they have stated what is the real story of the case. Hence, he made the submission that on the basis of their evidence, police again conducted the investigation with the permission of the Court and now filed the charge sheet and the material goes to show that the involvement of the present petitioner and hence he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other charge sheet materials and statement of witnesses produced before the Court.

Perusing the complaint filed by the complainant - Vasanthakumar, who is the son of the deceased, it is mentioned that while handling the gun something wrong was committed by the father and because of that reason, his father might have died. It is also mentioned in the complaint that his father was not having any enemy and relationship was alright with all the people. So at this stage, no suspicion was raised as against the present petitioner regarding his involvement in the case and even when the police took up the investigation, completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. The charge sheet material which is at Page No. 33 produced along with this petition also goes to show that it is only about the involvement of accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the offences alleged are under Sections 302, 201 of IPC r/w. Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1969. Even in this charge sheet also there is no whisper by the Investigating Officer about any abatement or conspiracy said to have been made by the present petitioner - additional accused to accused Nos. 1 to 3 to commit the alleged offences. As it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein that it is only during the course of trial and when the complainant - Vasanthakumar and his mother - Vijayalakshmi in their evidence before the trial Court they have stated about the involvement of the present petitioner and their version is; as there was a civil dispute pending between the present petitioner and deceased Bhopal, thinking that if Bhopal is eliminated then he can easily win the case before the Court and with this motive the present petitioner insisted accused Nos. 1 to 3 and conspired for committing the murder of the deceased. It is no doubt true on the basis of this evidence before the Court and by seeking permission the police have conducted further enquiry and collected the material which shows that the present petitioner is also involved in the commission of the alleged offences. But this is after lapse of 1 1/2 years.

I have perused the post mortem report. It is no doubt true that death is due to gun shot. But it is the case of the prosecution that it is as per earlier charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3 that accused No. 1 fired at deceased Bhopal and caused his death. Therefore, this medical evidence at this stage will not come to the aid of the prosecution to make out a prima-facie case as against the present petitioner. It is a matter to be established by the prosecution during the course of the trial. In view of the above discussions, even the prosecution is not able to make out a case with regard to the alleged offences said to have been committed under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, the bar u/s 18 of the said Act to entertain the petition will not come in the way. Looking to the averments made in the petition, the petitioner has made out a case of his reasonable apprehension of arrest at the hands of the respondent - police. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. So far as the apprehension of the prosecution that if anticipatory bail is granted, petitioner may abscond and he may tamper the prosecution witnesses, stringent conditions can be imposed which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent - police is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable u/s 304-A of IPC and u/s 27 of the Indian Arms Act and subsequently for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120(B), 302, 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and also Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered by the respondent - police in Crime No. 34/2012, now pending in S.C. No. 13/12 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kolar, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for; and

(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.