Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 995 (KAR)

Anthony Singh v. State of Karnataka

2022-08-01

K.NATARAJAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail in Crime No.3/2022 of Kothanur Police, for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Plearder for the State. 3. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was filed by the wife of the deceased namely Yashodha on 2/1/2022 alleging that her husband went out of the house on the night of 1/1/2022 to attend friend's party but he did not return. That on 2/1/2022, at about 8.30 a.m., the complainant's mother-in-law Valliyamma came and informed her that her husband has got head injury and he is lying unconscious in Labour Shed at Puruvankar Double Road. Immediately, she went near the spot and saw her husband had sustained bleeding injuries on his head and lying unconscious in the pool of blood. One Anirudh, a resident of another shed informed her that at 11.00 p.m. her husband, Joseph Madva and Bolen Madva were quarrelling, the complainant immediately went to the spot and saw her husband was lying unconscious she took her husband to the Victoria Hospital he was admitted as an in-patient and on 7/1/2022 at about 11.30 a.m., he succumbed to the injuries. 4. During the investigation, the petitioner is said to have been arrested by the police on 14/1/2022 at Assam and was brought to Bengaluru and produced before the Magistrate on 18/1/2022 and was taken to police custody on 22/1/2022. While earlier accused persons were granted bail and this petitioner's bail petition came to be rejected, hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is innocent of the offence and he has been falsely implicated in the said offence. The deceased himself went to the shed of the accused persons and tried to assault on the head by a cricket bat, at that time the accused snatched the bat and assaulted the deceased which cannot be considered as intention or motive to commit the murder of the deceased and it may attract the offence under Sec. 304(1) of IPC. He is in custody for about seven months. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. Hence, prayed for granting bail. 6. He is in custody for about seven months. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. Hence, prayed for granting bail. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that CW.16-Vishal is the eyewitness to the incident and CW.15 has also stated that the quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility of he absconding from the case and tampering with the prosecution witnesses. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, it reveals that admittedly the complainant is not the eyewitness to the incident but it came to know through one Anirudh who was the labour of the shed and as per the statement of the Vishal-CW16, who was the eyewitness to the incident has stated that he know the deceased Murugan while playing cricket and on the date of the incident the deceased took his bat and went towards some north indian boys who were shouting loudly. The said Murugan went there and started talking with them in hindi language and threatened them by hitting from the bat which was with him. At that time, a quarrel took place and this petitioner/accused snatched the bat and assaulted on the head which caused injuries to the deceased and thereafter they fled from the place. Of course, the accused is a resident of Assam but he is residing at Bengaluru for the past 12 years and his Aadhar Card is also produced before the Court. Except CW-16, there is no other eye witness to the incident. The deceased died six days after the injuries sustained by him. The post mortem report reveals that the death was caused due to the head injury and he was in coma for six days. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be considered that this petitioner/accused has committed offence under Sec. 302 of IPC. Investigation is completed and he is in custody for seven months. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by imposing certain stringent conditions, if bail is granted, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. Investigation is completed and he is in custody for seven months. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, by imposing certain stringent conditions, if bail is granted, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in Crime No.3/2022 of Kothanur Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum. Out of which, one surety must be with close relatives from his native place and another surety with local. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till disposal of the case by the trial Court.