Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 157 (KAR)

H. C. Earappa Reddy v. State of Karnataka

2018-02-01

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner-accused on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 327, 302 read with 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.28/2017 dated 04/12/2017. Subsequently Crime No. 223/2017 is registered by Kolar Town, police station. 2. After the demise of the injured in the hospital, subsequently the offence under Section 305of IPC also came to be inserted in place of section 302 of the IPC, registered in respondent-police station in Crime No.28/2017, subsequently Crime No. 223/2017 is registered by Kolar Town, police station. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 4. The son of the deceased is the complainant in this case wherein he has stated that his elder brother who is a Doctor residing at Bengaluru, the complainant is residing at Kolar. The injured P.G. Jayaram was working as Secretary in Gownipalli Vyavasaya Sangha for many years. About 12 years back, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies conducted an enquiry against the injured alleging that he had misused the amount of the Society. In an appeal to the Court, the injured was found not guilty, he had taken voluntary retirement. The president of the Society, Earappa Reddy and Hari Krishna and others were discussing with the injured about the finance of the society. On account of the same, there was ill will between them. In connection with the same, Hari Krishna used to visit the house of the complainant. On 04/12/2017 at about 3 p.m. when the complainant and the injured were in the house, Hari Krishna came and asked the injured to come with him saying that the President of the Society, Sri. Earappa Reddy has called to settle the financial transactions of the injured. Hari Krishna took the injured with him and the complainant continued to remain in the house. At about 5.15 p.m. Dr. Manju Jayasimha, the elder brother of the complainant called the complainant telephonically and informed about the assault made on the deceased near Railway Bridge. Immediately the complainant went to the hospital, the doctors advised him to take the injured to Bengaluru. At about 5.15 p.m. Dr. Manju Jayasimha, the elder brother of the complainant called the complainant telephonically and informed about the assault made on the deceased near Railway Bridge. Immediately the complainant went to the hospital, the doctors advised him to take the injured to Bengaluru. It is alleged that the petitioner Hari Krishana-accused No.2 and others have assaulted the injured with an intention to commit his murder. On the basis of the said complaint, firstly FIR came to be registered for the offences under Section 327 & 307 read with 34 of IPC but the injured expired on 09/12/2017 while getting treatment. Therefore as per the requisition made by the Police, Section 302 came to be inserted in the case in place of Section 307. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State. 6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. 7. The complainant is not the eye witness and he was also in the house and after getting telephonic information from his elder brother, the Doctor, only then he went to the Hospital. Whatever the names are stated in the complaint as assailants, it is only on the basis of the suspicion and because earlier the petitioner-accused No2 used to call the deceased to discuss the financial affairs of the said Society. The petitioner herein is the Chief Executive Officer of the said society. During the course of hearing of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that there was another Criminal case registered against the deceased about misappropriation of the Society funds. After investigation, charge sheet also came to be filed and the case is pending, in which the present petitioner has been cited as CW3, the witness on the side of the prosecution. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner herein, is the witness against the deceased in separate Criminal Case and falsely he has been implicated in this case. 8. Learned HCGP also made submission that so far, there is no statement of any of the witnesses claiming they are eye witnesses of the incident. But he only submitted that investigation is going on, therefore the petitioner is not entitled with anticipatory bail. 8. Learned HCGP also made submission that so far, there is no statement of any of the witnesses claiming they are eye witnesses of the incident. But he only submitted that investigation is going on, therefore the petitioner is not entitled with anticipatory bail. The petitioner denied the allegations made in the complaint contending that he is the witness cited against deceased in the 2nd Criminal case about misappropriation of the society fund and has been arraigned a one of the accused in the said case. He has contended that there is false implication and he has contended in the petition that he is innocent and not committed the alleged offence and he has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. 9. Looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be granted with anticipatory bail with the following conditions. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent- Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 327, 302 read with 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.28/2017, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and shall furnish one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. (iii) Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation. (iv) The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.