Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1794 (KAR)

Allabakash v. State

2020-09-14

B.A.PATIL

body2020
JUDGMENT B.A. Patil, J. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Cr.No.159/2019 of Yelahanka Police Station, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 341, 302 read with 34 of IPC pending on the file of LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in S.C. No.211/2020. 2. I have heard Sri.Jithendra M.S., learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.5 virtually and Sri.M.Divakar Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 3. The genesis of the case of the prosecution in brief is that accused No.1 namely Chand Pasha was owning three auto rickshaw and he had handed over one of the auto rickshaw to the deceased Dileep Kumar on rental basis and the deceased Dileep Kumar never used to pay the rents to accused No.1 and in that connection there was ill-will between them. Accordingly, accused No.1 by constituting an unlawful assembly along with accused Nos.2 to 5, hatched a plan to commit the murder of the deceased Dileep Kumar. In that pursuit, on 22.10.2019 at about 10.30 p.m., accused No.1 took the deceased to one Siddappaji Bar and made him to consume liquor and thereafter, on the guise of seeking drop near Kondappa Layout, took the deceased to the said place. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 followed them in another auto rickshaw by carrying lethal weapons and they poured chilly powder and attacked the deceased Dileep kumar by assaulting him with deadly weapons and committed murder of deceased Dileep Kumar. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint was filed earlier against the unknown persons. At the time of filing of charge sheet, this petitioner name was implicated. It is further submitted that no recovery has been made at the instance of petitioner. However, there is no serious overt-acts alleged against the petitioner and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged crime and the entire case rests only on the circumstantial evidence. It is further submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has provided shelter to the remaining accused persons and he helped them to flee away from the spot of incident. It is further submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has provided shelter to the remaining accused persons and he helped them to flee away from the spot of incident. It is further submitted that the petitioner is law abiding citizen and he would not flee from justice nor tamper with the prosecution case in the event of allowing the petition. He is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner is absconding since from committing of the crime, if he is released on bail, he would cause threat to the complainant and the prosecution witnesses and he would not be available for interrogation. It is further submitted that, the petitioner along with remaining accused persons have conspired with each other and committed heinous offence by murdering the deceased. Initially, the records and CCTV footages are available to show that the petitioner was accompanied with the accused persons at the place of incident. The petitioner has provided shelter and helped the remaining accused persons to escape from the place of incident. It is further submitted that the offence alleged is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and is serious in nature. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the State and perused the records. 7. On perusal of the records as well as charge sheet materials, it indicates that there is no serious overt-act alleged as against the petitioner and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged crime and the entire case rests only on circumstantial evidence. Though the learned HCGP submits that CCTV footages are available with respect to the alleged incident, when the charge sheet itself indicates that only allegation against the petitioner is he has provided shelter to the remaining accused persons and he has helped them to escape from the spot. Except these allegations, there are no serious allegations made against the petitioner. Though the learned HCGP submits that CCTV footages are available with respect to the alleged incident, when the charge sheet itself indicates that only allegation against the petitioner is he has provided shelter to the remaining accused persons and he has helped them to escape from the spot. Except these allegations, there are no serious allegations made against the petitioner. When the case rests on circumstantial evidence, no serious overt-act alleged against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner/accused is ordered to be enlarged on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice. 8. In the light of the discussions held by me above, the petition is allowed . Petitioner/accused No.5 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.159/2019 of Yelahanka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 341, 302 read with 34 of IPC pending on the file of LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C. No.211/2020 subject to the following conditions: 1. Petitioner/accused No.5 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 2. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly. 3. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission. 4. He shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., first of every month between 10.00 a.m., to 5.00 p.m., till the trial is concluded. 5. He shall be regular in attending the trial. 6. If he fails to appear before the Court below regularly, unless he has been exempted for good reasons, the trial Court is at liberty to cancel the bail.