Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 822 (KAR)

R. ANAND v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2016-11-05

BUDIHAL R.B.

body2016
ORDER : BUDIHAL R.B, J. 1. This is the petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 6 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking their release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Section 302 and 120(B) of IPC, registered in Crime No. 25/2016. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo dated 05.11.2016 stating that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition in respect of petitioner No. 2/accused No. 6. 3. The said memo is placed on record and the petition in respect of petitioner No. 2/accused No. 6 is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. On the basis of the complaint, firstly a case came to be registered against the unknown persons. During the course of investigation the present petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 5 5. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments is that on 13/03/2016 at about 2.00 a.m., complainant's friend Dheeraj S/o. Gopal Shetty called and told him to come near his house. When the complainant came outside his house the said Dheeraj has informed him that some unknown persons committed murder of his parents. The complainant went to the police station and informed the fact to the police, thereby he went to the house of Dheeraj, wherein he has seen the dead bodies of Gopal Shetty and Smt. Roopa on the cot. After seeing the dead bodies he suspected that some unknown persons have committed the murder of father and mother of Dheeraj by lethal weapons for unknown reasons. On the basis of said complaint, firstly a case is registered against some unknown persons and subsequently the present petitioner and other accused persons were involved in the case. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No. 5 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that accused No. 1 was in love with a girl belonging to different community and he wanted to marry' with that girl, which was opposed by his parents. For that accused No. 1 engaged the services of accused Nosh and 6 and through the said accused Supari was given to accused Nosh and 4 to execute the work of committing the murder of Gopal Shetty and his wife Smt. Roppa. For that accused No. 1 engaged the services of accused Nosh and 6 and through the said accused Supari was given to accused Nosh and 4 to execute the work of committing the murder of Gopal Shetty and his wife Smt. Roppa. Learned counsel further made the submission that so far as accused No.6 is concerned, who has been already granted bail by the order of this Court, the allegations are at the most under Section 120(B) of the IPC and the present petitioner is also on the same footing with that of accused No. 6. Even with regard to the recovery is concerned, only the mobile phone and cash of Rs.50,000/- said to have been seized during investigation by the present petitioner and accused No. 6. Learned counsel submitted that so far as offence under Section 302 of IPC is concerned., there is no material to show that the present petitioner directly participated in committing the murder of parents of said Dheeraj. On the ground of parity the present petitioner may be admitted to regular bail. 8. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the investigation materials which show that there is prima facie case even against the present petitioner also and hence, he is not entitled to be granted with bail. 9. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the entire charge sheet materials produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Looking to the materials, at the first instance the name of the present petitioner was not mentioned either in the complaint or in the FIR. It is only during the course of investigation he has been arrayed as accused No.5. Looking to the prosecution materials they go to show that accused No. 1 get the work done by engaging the services of the present petitioner and accused No.6 through whom Supari was said to have been given to accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Therefore, according to the story of the prosecution the alleged act of murder said to have been committed by accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Looking to the investigation materials, no doubt true that during investigation mobile phone and cash of Rs.50,000/- said to have been seized from the present petitioner and accused No. 6. 2, 3 and 4. Therefore, according to the story of the prosecution the alleged act of murder said to have been committed by accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Looking to the investigation materials, no doubt true that during investigation mobile phone and cash of Rs.50,000/- said to have been seized from the present petitioner and accused No. 6. But so far as the main offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, even according to the prosecution case, the present petitioner has not participated. So far as the conspiracy is concerned, it is to be considered at the time of trial after the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Accused Nos. 6, who stands on the same footing with similar set of allegations had been admitted to bail by this Court on 19.10.2016 in Crl.P.5990/2015. Considering all these materials, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the present petitioner. Hence, the following. ORDER 10. The petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.5 is ordered to be released on bail for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, registered in respondent-police station Crime No.25/2016, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) and shall furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court; (ii) He shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly; 11. He shall appear before the concerned court regularly.