Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 993 (KAR)

Manchanayaka v. State of Karnataka

2022-08-01

K.NATARAJAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.174/2021 registered by Jayapura Police Station, Mysuru District for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 120-B read with Sec. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint filed by one Narayani, brother of the deceased, the Police registered a case against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC. Subsequently, during the investigation, it was revealed that the deceased said to have married accused No.3- Chandri and she is said to be having illicit relationship with accused No.1. Accused No.4 who is the sister of accused No.3, she is also said to be having illicit relationship with accused No.2-the present petitioner herein. The deceased said to be warned accused No.4 to disconnect the relationship with this petitioner. Therefore, accused Nos.1 to 4 said to have conspired with each other to commit murder of the deceased-Nagaraju. Accordingly, on 6/10/2021/7/10/2021, accused No.4 said to be dropped the deceased in his motorcycle to the place of occurrence where accused Nos.1 and 2 said to be assaulted the deceased with iron rod, caused head injury, committed murder and thrown the dead body. After arresting the petitioner on 9/10/2021, he was remanded to the judicial custody. His bail petition came to be rejected by the Sessions Court. Hence, he is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Absolutely, there is no material against him to connect the accused with the crime. The investigation is already completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The petitioner is in custody from last nine months. His presence may not be required for the purpose of any investigation. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are already granted bail by the Sessions Judge. Hence, prayed for granting bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and contended that the statement of C.Ws.6 to 9 reveals that they have seen accused Nos.4 with the company of the deceased and also company of the accused-this petitioner and accused Nos.1 and 3. Hence, prayed for granting bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and contended that the statement of C.Ws.6 to 9 reveals that they have seen accused Nos.4 with the company of the deceased and also company of the accused-this petitioner and accused Nos.1 and 3. Subsequently, the witnesses were identified the photograph of this petitioner in the Police Station which proves that the accused is the person who accompanied the deceased on the date of incident. The blood stained cloth of the accused as well as the iron rod were sent to the FSL and the report is also received which clearly reveals that the blood stain of the deceased was found in the cloth of the accused-present petitioner and also on the iron rod. There is a scientific evidence against him for connecting the accused with the crime. If the petitioner granted bail, he may commit similar offence and abscond from the case is not ruled out. Hence, prayed for dismissing the bail petition. 6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the case of the prosecution is rest upon the circumstantial evidence, especially CWs.6 to 9 who gave their statements before the Magistrate that they have seen the deceased along with the accused No.3 who is wife of the deceased, a person and accused No.1 near the goods tempo. Subsequently after the death of the deceased, the further statement of the witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer where they said to be identified the photograph of this petitioner who is a person present along with accused Nos.1 and 3. There is no eye- witness to the incident, only connecting circumstantial witness against the accused-petitioner is blood stained cloth of the accused and iron rod seized from the accused were stained with the blood of the deceased. Except these two circumstantial evidence, there is no other material placed against the accused person for connecting the accused. Though there is a mention regarding mobile phone contact between accused Nos.3 and this petitioner, but there is no clarity in their phone conversations. The investigation is already completed long back and charge- sheet has been filed. The petitioner is in custody for almost from 10 months. Though there is a mention regarding mobile phone contact between accused Nos.3 and this petitioner, but there is no clarity in their phone conversations. The investigation is already completed long back and charge- sheet has been filed. The petitioner is in custody for almost from 10 months. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, accused Nos.3 and 4 are already granted bail by the Sessions Court and the illicit intimacy is the main cause for the commission of murder. Therefore, this petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. The Trial Court/Committal Court is directed to release the petitioner-accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.174/2021 registered by Jayapura Police Station, Mysuru District for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 120-B read with Sec. 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner-accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Committal Court; (ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly; (iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly; (iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial Court; If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of this bail order.