Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 274 (KAR)

Parashuram v. State Of Karnataka

2020-01-30

P.G.M.PATIL

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This is a bail petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.116/2019 of Gajendragad P.S., registered for the offence punishable under sections 449, 506(2), 302 and 109 read with section 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 6.11.2019, at about 3.30 p.m. One Basavaraj S/o Shivappa Madar filed a complaint before the respondent police. As stated in the complaint on 6/11/2019 at about 3.30 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 3 with an intention to kill both the deceased persons as they have loved and married and belong to separate communities, went to their house, dragged them out of the house assaulted with stones and stick on their head and stabbed on the stomach with knife and caused grievous injures and thereby killed them. When the complainant came to separate them the accused gave life threat to him. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent police registered a case against accused Nos.1 to 3 initially and taken up investigation for the aforesaid offences. 3. Petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.4 in the course of investigation has stated that the entire material collected by the investigating officer does not prima facie indicate that the petitioner has committed the alleged offences. The petitioner is implicated in the case on the basis of further statement of the complainant given in the course of investigation. The petitioner never instigated the other accused to commit the alleged offence and the petitioner was not present in the spot of the alleged incident. It is also stated that the marriage between Sri. Ramesh and Gangamma took place about 3 years back and subsequently, there is no evidence of any quarrel between the family members as the theory of the prosecution with an intention to take revenge against the Ramesh for having married with Smt. Gangamma who belong to other community, accused Nos.1 to 3 murdered Ramesh and Gangamma at the instigation of the petitioner is not trust worthy. Retaining in the custody on the basis of false allegation is not justified. The Sessions Judge refused the bail to the petitioner erroneously. There is no prima facie material against the petitioner for the alleged offence. Retaining in the custody on the basis of false allegation is not justified. The Sessions Judge refused the bail to the petitioner erroneously. There is no prima facie material against the petitioner for the alleged offence. He is the permanent resident of Lakkalakatti village of Ron taluk having movable and immovable properties and the chances of absconding in the event of bail is not there. He is ready and willing to abide by the conditions to be imposed by the Court and to furnish adequate surety to the satisfaction of the Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 5. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner is not found in the complaint filed on 6/11/2019. However, on the basis of further statement of the complainant recorded by the investigating officer on 7/11/2019, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4. In this further statement, the complainant has stated that when he approached accused No.4, for the rescue of the deceased persons, he told him that he has sent them to kill the said persons. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the statement of one witness Ashok is also to the said fact and in his presence accused No.4- the petitioner herein informed the complainant that he has sent accused Nos.1 to 3 to kill the deceased. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not present in the scene of alleged offence. Therefore, at this stage, it appears that there is no material to attract the provisions of Section 109 IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner is not required for further investigation in the matter. It is not disputed that the petitioner is the permanent resident of Ginageri taluk, Koppal district and that he is serving as driver in KSRTC, Koppal Depot and he is also having movable and immovable properties living with his family members. Therefore, in case of granting bail, there is no chances of absconding. 7. At this stage, this Court is of the considered opinion there is no any possibility of fleeing away from justice or tampering the prosecution witness in case the petitioner is released on bail. 8. Therefore, in case of granting bail, there is no chances of absconding. 7. At this stage, this Court is of the considered opinion there is no any possibility of fleeing away from justice or tampering the prosecution witness in case the petitioner is released on bail. 8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by imposing necessary conditions to see that the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not abscond and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The bail petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.116/2019 of Gajendragad Police Station, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, on the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 2. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer to complete the investigation. 3. In case of violation of any conditions, bail granted to the petitioner shall stands cancelled.