Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajashekharan vs State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7740/2013
BETWEEN:
Sri. Rajashekharan,
S/o. Late Murugeshan,
Aged 30 years,
Occ. Driver in PCTC in Army,
R/at No.41/13, PCTC Military Qtrs,
Vannarpet, Agaram Post,
Bangalore-560 047. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. H.S. Chandramouli, Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka,
By the police of HSR Police Station,
Bangalore-560 104.
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.
357/2013 of H.S.R. Layout P.S., Bangalore and in
C.C.No.16368/2013 and S.C.No.1286/2013 pending on the
file of the F.T.C.-VI, Bangalore City, for the offences
punishable under Sections 201 and 302 of IPC.
2
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following :
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 302 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.357/2013.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that there is no material as against the petitioner to show his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. The learned Counsel submitted that initially, a missing complaint was filed and there afterwards without there being any complaint, the .accused was said to be already in the police station. So far as the second complaint is concerned, it is nothing but a voluntary statement of the accused himself. It is submitted 3 that it is the case of the prosecution that panchanama was conducted in the house of the present petitioner and some blood stains and marks were noticed on the spot. He submitted that looking to the date of panchanama and so also the date of recording the statement of one of the witnesses, who is a signatory to the said panchanama, it goes to falsify the case of the prosecution that the panchanama was conducted on the date mentioned in the said panchanama. The learned Counsel submitted that admittedly, there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution itself is based on the circumstantial evidence. There are no circumstances which suggests the guilt of the accused that he committed the murder of the deceased and took the dead body to a distant place, burnt there and then buried. The learned Counsel submitted that since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in custody. Now the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed in the matter. He submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4
4. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that looking to the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during investigation goes to show that there was transaction between the deceased as well as the petitioner that the petitioner, who was working in the military department, used to purchase the articles from the military canteen for a lower price and giving it to the deceased. In that connection, one day, there was quarrel and when the deceased threatened the petitioner that he will report the matter to his higher authorities, the petitioner took the wooden stool, assaulted the deceased on his head and committed his murder. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that on the voluntary statement given by the petitioner, the police went to the place where the dead body was burnt and it was buried and they have collected burnt bones from said place. Hence, he submitted that all these materials go to show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. He submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
5
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record. I have also perused the order passed by the lower court on the bail application.
6. As it is submitted, the first complaint was filed by the brother of the deceased it was on 25.6.2013 stating that his brother went out of the house on 24.6.2013 at 5.45 p.m. stating that he received some phone call and subsequently, not at all returned to house. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered in Crime No.337/2013 for missing of the person and the FIR was also registered. Subsequently, on 9.7.2013, the HSR police inspector and the staff called the complainant and produced the petitioner. Further averments in the said complaint are nothing but voluntary statement said to have been given by the petitioner narrating as to how the incident has taken place. The petitioner has also admitted that it is he who assaulted the deceased with the wooden stool in his house and caused the death of the said person and thereafter, the dead body was rolled in the cloth. He took the dead body to a distant place 6 in the vehicle of his friend and burnt it and also buried at the said place. Looking to the materials, so far as the second complaint is concerned, even before the complaint is lodged, it is said as per the prosecution that the accused person was already in the police station. As it is already submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, no explanation is given by the prosecution as to on what basis the petitioner was taken to the custody of police. Even the entire voluntary statement said to have been given by the accused person cannot be relied upon at this stage. Looking to the mahazar, it is said to have been conducted in the house of the present petitioner on 11.7.2013. It is no doubt true that looking to the contents of the said mahazar, it is mentioned that there were blood marks on the floor in the house of the petitioner and the spot panchanama was conducted in the presence of the panch witnesses. The statement of one of the panch witnesses was recorded on 10.7.2013 wherein he has stated that the said panchanama was conducted on 10.7.2013. As it is submitted, that itself goes to falsify the case of the prosecution that Panchnama was conducted on 11.7.2013. So also looking to other materials collected by the 7 investigating officer during investigation that is the proceedings of Taluka Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar dated 12.8.2013, it is mentioned that on 9.7.2013 at about 1.00 p.m., about 20 persons visited the spot and found that the body was fleshily in condition. If the dead body was seen by the persons on 9.7.2013, then there was no question to go along with the present petitioner to the spot on 10.7.2013 and exhume the body as it is mentioned by the Taluka Executive Magistrate in the proceedings at page No.21. As it is submitted, the case of the prosecution completely rests on the circumstantial evidence and there are no direct eye witnesses. Therefore, on the basis of the materials on record by the investigating officer during investigation, it cannot be said that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner about his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence under Section 302 IPC. Now the investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet is filed. Nothing is seized from the possession of the petitioner. Looking to the materials, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable for death or imprisonment 8 for life. The apprehension of the prosecution that if bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond and he may tamper the prosecution witnesses is concerned, reasonable conditions can be imposed which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, looking to the entire material on record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case wherein discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail of the offence punishable under Sections 201 and 302 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.357/2013, subject to following conditions:-
I. The petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and shall offer a solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court.
II. The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. III. The petitioner shall attend the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-