Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1910 (KAR)

Devaraju S L v. State Of Karnataka

2020-09-30

ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.173/2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The Police, after conducting investigation, filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 114, 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC. The said matter is pending pending on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, in S.C.No.61/2020. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the there was a love affair between the daughter of accused No.1 and victim Manju, since there was a prohibited degree of relationship, petitioner-accused No.1 objected their marriage and fixed the marriage of his daughter with another person i.e., C.W.23. But the victim Manju eloped with the daughter of accused No.1 and both of them married. Because of the said marriage, accused No.1 and others conspired to commit the murder of Manju and hired the accused Nos.2 to 5 to commit the murder. Accused Nos.2 to 5 kidnapped Manju and committed the murder and in order to cause disappearance of evidence, the dead body was thrown into the river. Since accused No.1 has instigated the other accused to commit the offence by giving supari, thereby all the accused have committed the alleged offence. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1, the bail petition filed by him before the Sessions Court was rejected. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioneraccused and learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the charge sheet records. 4. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. The only circumstance to connect the petitioner-accused No.1 is that some of the accused have given voluntary statement stating that they have received money from accused No.1 to commit the murder of victim Manju. The voluntary statement given by other accused is a subject matter of trial. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion after giving specific finding about the charge sheet records as the same is not permissible while considering the bail application. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that accused Nos.4 and 5 have been granted bail as per the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.2967/2020 and accused No.6 has been granted bail as per the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.819/2020. 5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that accused Nos.4 and 5 have been granted bail as per the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.2967/2020 and accused No.6 has been granted bail as per the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.819/2020. Hence, the present petitioner is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. In the present case, the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Under these circumstances, the presence of petitioner-accused No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation. 6. Learned HCGP has submitted that C.W.8 is none other than the daughter of accused No.1, who had eloped with victim Manju, as such, there are chances of tampering the said witness and also the other prosecution witness. 7. The said objection of the prosecution can be set right by imposing stringent condition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not just and proper to subject the petitioner to pre-trial conviction and sentence. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following : ORDER Petition is allowed. Consequently, petitioneraccused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.173/2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 114, 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC by Holenarasipura Town Police Station, 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 jail authorities shall make arrangements for COVID test to the petitioner before releasing from the prison. (iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of. (vi) In the event of threat caused either to C.W.8 or any other prosecution witness, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.