Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1174 (KAR)

Sudhir Jain v. State Of Karnataka

2019-06-10

S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner (accused no.1) is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to proceedings in Crime No.292/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 364, 302, 120(B), 201 and 396 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complaint came to be filed regarding the missing of Sudarshan Jain. Initially the complaint did not mention specific names. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the complaint was lodged on 12.08.2018 stating that the complainant was running cloth shop and deceased Surdarshan Jain was one of his workers. It is stated that Sudarshan Jain had left the shop at about 9.10 p.m. on 11.08.2018 but never reached home. The case of missing of Sudarshan Jain was reported to the police, and FIR was registered. Subsequently, on 17.08.2018, the dead body of Sudarshan Jain was found in the river near Kuloor Village of Mangaluru. Charge sheet came to be filed and the case that is made out in the charge sheet is that there was a dispute with respect to the sale proceeds between the petitioner and deceased who is his brother and this being the motive, the said offence was committed. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case rests on circumstantial evidence as nobody has witnessed the commission of offences. He has also contended that the petitioners mother is solely dependent on him as the other brother has died and he is ready to willing to cooperate with the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that the report of FSL with respect to matching of blood of the mother to the sample taken from the body would take time. Hence, there would be a delay in the trial. 5. Learned Sessions Judge had rejected the application of the petitioner observing that if the petitioner is released, there would be a possibility of influencing the witnesses and tempering the prosecution evidence. It must be noted that the Sessions Court has observed that the case depends on circumstantial evidence. 6. Hence, there would be a delay in the trial. 5. Learned Sessions Judge had rejected the application of the petitioner observing that if the petitioner is released, there would be a possibility of influencing the witnesses and tempering the prosecution evidence. It must be noted that the Sessions Court has observed that the case depends on circumstantial evidence. 6. Taking note of the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence, though prima-facie case is sought to be made as regards motive against the petitioner, taking note that the charge sheet has been filed and also the peculiar circumstances including the position of the mother being dependent on the petitioner, the petitioner is to be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions; 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned court. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth. (iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, and influence any witness. (iv) The petitioner to report his presence before the concerned SHO once in a month till trial is concluded. (v) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner shall result in automatic cancellation of bail.