Karnataka High Court
Sunder A vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 September, 2019
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. No.6017/2019
BETWEEN
SUNDER A.
S/O ANTHONY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/A No.27, 19TH CROSS,
OLD BAGALUR LAYOUT,
NEAR WATER TANK,
LINGARAJAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 069. .....PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAGADEESHA H., ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BANASAWADI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 069
REP. BY THEIR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560 001. .... RESPONDENT
( BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973, PRAYING
THAT THIS HON`BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME No.566/2018 (S.C.
No.426/2019) OF BANASAWADI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
2
SECTIONS 364, 120B, 302, 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in S.C. No.426/2019 on the file of XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. Accused No.2 in the said case has already been released on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.4031/2019 vide order dated 20.08.2019.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the accused persons particularly accused nos. 1 and 2 were intending to marry the daughter of the deceased by name Shanthi of Lingarajapura. It is alleged that the said Shanthi was not willing to give her daughters to accused nos. 1 and 2 in marriage. In this regard, accused nos. 1 and 2 have had vengeance against the said lady. In order to remove the said lady and with an intention to marry the daughters of deceased, accused nos. 1 and 2, on 9.10.2018 at about 4.20 p.m. have taken the deceased in 3 Autorikshaw to Arkavathi Layout Extension and there they have committed murder of the said lady by assaulting her with wooden piece and strangulated the neck of the deceased with a belt. Both accused nos. 1 and 2 as such have committed the murder of the deceased.
3. At the initial stages, the missing complaint was lodged so far as deceased is concerned and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found after 10 days of the incident i.e. 20.10.2018 and investigation was taken. Accused nos. 1 and 2 were nabbed later. It is a case of circumstantial evidence.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State has brought to the notice of this Court that there are two witnesses i.e. Prathap and Raju who have stated that they have seen accused nos. 1 and 2 going along with the deceased on 9.10.2018 and further there was recovery at the instance of accused no.1.
4
5. It is seen from the records that though the dead body was found on 20.10.2018, till that point of time, though knowing fully well that daughters of the deceased have suspected the murder, they have not disclosed the fact on 9.10.2018. Statement of these two witnesses were recorded on 14.10.2018 and 21.10.2018 on which day, they have stated that they came to know about the incident by accused themselves which amounts to extra-judicial confession on the part of the accused. These two circumstances in my opinion, have to be established beyond reasonable doubt during the course of trial along with motive factor as alleged. Extra-judicial confession itself is a weak piece of evidence that cannot be made a basis for rejection of bail petition.
6. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case and, as charge sheet has already been filed and as accused No.2, who stands on the same footing as that of the petitioner, is already released on bail, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the same conditions. Hence, the following: 5
ORDER Petition is allowed. The petitioner (accused No.1) shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.566/2018 (SC No.426/2019) of Banasawadi Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 120B, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdiction Court.
2. The petitioner shall not in any manner directly or indirectly, indulge in threatening or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
3. The petitioner shall not indulge in further committing or repeating any such offence or indulge in any criminal activities.
4. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the 6 Court. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till the case registered against him is disposed off.
It is made clear that if any of the conditions stipulated above are violated, State is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail before the concerned committal or trial court as the case may be.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma