Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 620 (KAR)

Rajkumar v. State By Parappanagarahara

2014-07-01

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2014
Judgment : 1. This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 118, 201, 302, 364A r/w Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.338/2013. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that there are no direct witnesses to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. He has submitted that the present petitioner is not at all the employee of Madhura Garments nor known to the deceased and totally unconnected with the alleged incident. He has submitted that there is no test identification parade conducted in this case to identify the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. The voluntary statement of the accused persons was recorded on 24.11.2013, but before that, statement of other witnesses have been recorded wherein they have narrated the whole story. But how they came to know about the incident is not explained by the prosecution. It is submitted that from the date of arrest petitioner is in custody and the prosecution has not placed prima facie material against the petitioner. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in SLP(Crl.)6943/2011 and submitted that even in the case on hand there is no test identification parade conducted, as such, petitioner is entitled to be granted with bail on that ground. He has also relied upon the order of this Court dated 25.3.2014 passed in Crl.P.No.6949/2013. 4. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that though there are no direct witnesses to the incident, but looking to the material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, it establishes the chain of circumstances to show the involvement of the petitioner along with other accused persons in committing the alleged offences. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. 5. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. 5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition and all other materials placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the petition containing the statement of witnesses and the mahazar said to have been conducted by the Investigating Officer during investigation. 6. The investigation material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation goes to show that there are no direct witnesses to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. But looking to the circumstances collected in this case, the deceased was working in Madhura Garments and accused No.1 along with accused No.2 requested the deceased to pay the amount and when the deceased told that he is not having the amount, accused Nos.1 and 2 along with other accused persons conspired and they approached Venkatrama Raju, the owner of the building and took a room in the said building in the third floor. The statement of the owner of the building goes to show that he demanded Rs.15,000/-as advance and fixed the monthly rental at Rs.4,000/-. They paid Rs.2,000/- advance and took the key from Venkatarama Raju in respect of the said room. The statement of the watchman of the said apartment who was working under Venkatarama Raju was also recorded in this case. It is stated that when the owner of the building asked about the visiting card of accused, accused No.2 i.e., the petitioner herein gave the mobile number as 9632217821 and that they have come from Delhi and subsequently when the owner wanted to contact to the said number as the relatives of Venkatarama Raju had come from Andhra Pradesh and he wanted to show his building to the relatives, he was informed that it was a wrong number. After recording the statement of these witnesses, accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and they gave their voluntary statement in which they have stated that if they are taken they will show the two wheeler vehicle belonging to the deceased which they had thrown at a place and according to their voluntary statement, the Investigating Officer had been to the said place and the two wheeler vehicle belonging to the deceased was seized by the Investigating Officer in the presence of panch witnesses. It is also the case of the owner of the building that he has given one key to the accused Nos.1 and 2 when they paid the advance amount and when his relatives came and he took them to the said room with the help of another key, when he opened the said room, he found the dead body tied in a gunny bag. These materials show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. 7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the test identification parade and the decision produced of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I have gone through the said decision wherein the incident has taken place during night and it was the contention of the witnesses that they have seen the culprit in the light. But here it is not so. The owner as well as the watchman have seen accused Nos.1 and 2 during the broad day light and not during night. Therefore, the question of conducting test identification parade does not arise at all. Not only that, the material goes to show that during investigation the witnesses have identified the present petitioner. Hence, looking to the material evidence on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, petition is rejected. However, petitioner is at liberty to file the bail petition after recording the evidence of material witnesses.