Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 6 (KAR)

Viresh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-01-02

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioner i.e., accused No.3 has filed this petition under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking his enlargement on bail in FIR (Crime) No.113/2019 of Muddebihal Police Station, wherein the charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for brevity referred to as IPC). 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was in love with one Laxmibai, the younger sister of accused Nos.1 and 2, which was not acceptable to accused Nos.1 and 2. Despite their advice not to continue the alleged love affair with their sister, it appears that the deceased said to have continued his affair with Laxmibai. This made accused Nos.1 and 2 to determine to take away the life of the deceased, for which, they took the help of the present petitioner, who is accused No.3. Accordingly, on 29.07.2019 accused Nos.1 and 2 while going in a car being driven by accused No.3, noticed that the deceased Manjunatha was going on a motorcycle and they made him to stop. After assaulting him on his head, accused Nos.1 and 2 put the deceased in the car, where they further assaulted him and tied his body with metallic wires and also tied his hands with the cloth (towel). In the process, they strangulated him and caused his death. All the three persons took the deceased in the same car near Alamatti Dam and thrown the dead body in the river. The said dead body was noticed by CW.8 and CW.9, who were the villagers, who informed the police, upon which the FIR was registered. Upon investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused persons for the alleged offences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that even according to the charge sheet, there is no allegation of direct overtact against the present petitioner. It is only alleged that he was driving the car in which the deceased was taken by accused Nos.1 and 2, by which itself, it cannot be held that the petitioner/accused No.3 was a party in the alleged commission of crime. He further submitted that even the charge sheet does not disclose existence of any material evidence against the accused, more particularly against the present petitioner. 4. He further submitted that even the charge sheet does not disclose existence of any material evidence against the accused, more particularly against the present petitioner. 4. For the reasons best known to it, the prosecution has not filed objections to the petition. However, the learned High Court Government Pleader in his argument conceded that there are no direct evidence or material as against the present petitioner and that it is only based upon the alleged voluntary statement of the other accused, the charge sheet appears to have been filed even against the present petitioner, who is accused No.3. 5. Despite specifically asking the learned High Court Government Pleader as to what are the materials collected to show, more particularly the allegation that the petitioner was driving the alleged car when the alleged commission of crime said to have been carried by accused Nos.1 and 2 in a moving vehicle, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that apparently there are no materials on the said point. When the learned High Court Government Pleader himself concedes that there are no prima facie materials as against the present petitioner and his alleged involvement in the commission of crime, there are no reasons to deny the relief of bail as sought by the petitioner. As such, I am of the view that by imposing stringent conditions upon the present petitioner, he may be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER The Petition stands allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail in C.C.No.526/2019, pending on the file of JMFC at Muddebihal, for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions: 1. He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court. 2. He shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing. 3. He shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and documents in any manner. 4. He shall keep informing the investigating officer about the change in the address, if any, in writing and obtain an acknowledgement in that regard.