Karnataka High Court
Parasu S/O Siddappa Madar vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200030/2017
Between:
Parasu
S/o Siddappa Madar
Age: Major, Occ: Agri.
R/o Otihal, Tq. Sindagi
Dist. Vijayapur
... Petitioner
(By Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
Represented by Addl. SPP
Kalaburagi Bench
(Through Almel Police Station
Dist. Vijayapur)
... Respondent
(By Sri Prabhugouda S. Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to grant the regular bail to the petitioner in
C.C.No.179/2012 (Almel Police Station Crime No.03/2010)
pending on the file of J.M.F.C. Court Sindagi, which is
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 307, 109 r/w 149 of IPC and under Sections 25,
27 of Indian Arms Act.
2
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.03/2010 (C.C.No.179/2012) of Almel Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 109 r/w Section 149 of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, seven-eight months prior to 03.01.2010, accused No.1 called one Sanjeev over the phone to come and take their side in a quarrel, but the said Sanjeev told that he is in Gulbarga and will not come and participate along with the accused. With that hitch, as the said Sanjeev has not acceded to their request, on 03.01.2016 in between 7.30 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. when the said Sanjeev was sitting along with his friends near Basveshwar Circle, at that time, the accused persons by constituting an unlawful 3 assembly with a common object to commit the murder of said Sanjeev came there and accused Nos.4 to 6 instigated and accused Nos.1 and 2 fired towards said Sanjeev with a country pistol, which was illegally possessed by accused No.3. The said fire caused the injury to the right side chest and other parts of the body and bleeding injuries were caused. Thereafter he was shifted to the hospital and on the basis of the complaint a case has been registered against the accused persons.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence alleged against him. It is also contended that accused No.1 has also been released on bail and remaining accused persons have faced trial in S.C.No.135/2016 and have been acquitted by the jurisdictional Court. He has further contended that 4 there is no question of tampering the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner and the offences leveled against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He has further contended that petitioner has got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded. It is further contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that accused-petitioner was absconding and as such split up case has been registered against the accused-petitioner. At this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of he being absconded and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5
6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition. As could be seen from the complaint, it reveals that the alleged incident took place and thereafter trial was also held in S.C.No.135/2016 against accused Nos.4 to 6 and they have been acquitted and even the documents also indicates that accused No.1 Pradeep has been already released on bail by this Court. In that light when already other accused persons have been acquitted and another accused person has been released on bail and when the said offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and already investigation is over and the charge sheet has been filed, in that light, if by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner is released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
7. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: 6
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;
iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required;
iv) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG Ct: MHS