Vasant vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The petitioner is said to be accused No. 3 in Crime No. 9/2012. The allegations were that, on 04.02.2012, the complainant namely, Eramma had alleged that, Nandappa and Shantavva were her parents and accused No. 1 was the elder brother of her father and they were residing separately. It was alleged that, her father and accused No. 1 owned 8 acres of land and 6 houses. There was a partition about 8 years prior to the incident, between her father and her uncle. They were each enjoying 3 acres of land and they had given 1 acre each to their sister. The accused No. 1 was not satisfied with his share and was threatening the deceased of killing him and his wife. Accused No. 1 had subsequently left the village, as he was having an illicit relationship with one) Kamalavva, and since the family members of Kamalavva took strong exception to the relationship, he had to leave the village in shame.

That on 04.02.2012, the deceased parents of the complainant had gone to the fields and she and her brother were in the house In the evening, when the parents did not return and one of the bullocks, returned to the house with a broken yoke, the complainant suspected that there was something amiss and had gone in search of her parents. She saw that, there were several weapons and that her father''s clothes were nearby and when she went near a haystack, she found that, her parents had been set on fire and she had seen accused No. 1 running away from the sugar cane field nearby. Therefore, the complaint was filed alleging offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''I.P.C.'' for brevity). It is on the basis of the said complaint, that the accused had been arraigned and on the voluntary statement of accused Nos. 4 and 5, they had apprehended the present petitioner and they were in custody.

Accused Nos. 4 and 5 have been enlarged on bail. Therefore, the present petitioner claims that, on mere suspicion and on the basis of the alleged extra judicial confession, he was being incarcerated. That leads to a miscarriage of justice and the Court below having rejected the bail petition, only on the ground that a heinous offence has been committed, cannot be attributed to the petitioner on the basis of the material evidence on record and seeks enlargement on bail.

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor raised his objections and seeks to justify the denial of bail by the lower Court. However, given the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail.

The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a self bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, with a solvent surety for a like sum., subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeking leave of that Court.

The petitioner shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing.

The petitioner shall not influence or seek to threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner.