Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 746 (KAR)

Kishore Kumar @ Kishore S/o Muniraju v. State by City Market Police Station Bengaluru

2018-06-27

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

body2018
ORDER : The petitioner is accused No.5 against whom charge sheet is laid alleging offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 120(B), 302 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP. Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of objections, but has orally opposed the petition. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was doing wholesale coriander business in the City Market. Accused No.1 was also doing the same business and therefore, there was business rivalry between them. In this background, accused Nos.1 to 9 entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, on the intervening night of 9.12.2017/10.12.2017 at 12.10 A.M., all the accused persons attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and caused his death. The complaint was filed by the brother of the deceased and FIR was lodged against unknown persons. 4. In the course of investigation, the prosecution has examined the two employees of the deceased who have implicated accused Nos.1 and 2 and six others in the alleged incident. According to these witnesses, they had personally witnessed the incident, but out of fear, they went to their house and turned up only on 12.12.2017 to give their statement before the Police. Their conduct appears to be highly unnatural and leads to doubt their very presence during the occurrence. The chopper alleged to have been used for the commission of the offence is recovered on 04.01.2018. 5. The petitioner herein came to be implicated solely on the basis of the voluntary disclosure made by accused No.1. The investigation does not attribute any specific role to the present petitioner in the alleged incident. Identity of the petitioner is not established. Therefore, considering all the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the petitioner deserves to be admitted to bail. His custody cannot be extended any further solely by way of punishment. His presence for the purpose of trial can be secured by imposing necessary conditions. 6. Hence, the following order: Criminal Petition is allowed. a. Petitioner/accused No.5 is ordered to be enlarged on bail on obtaining a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. b. Petitioner shall appear before the court as and when required. 6. Hence, the following order: Criminal Petition is allowed. a. Petitioner/accused No.5 is ordered to be enlarged on bail on obtaining a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. b. Petitioner shall appear before the court as and when required. c. Petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner. d. Petitioner shall not get involved in similar offences. e. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.