Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha Y D vs State By Mandya Rural Police on 1 April, 2016
Author: A.V.Chandrashekara
Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF APRIL 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1689/2016
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA Y D
S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
WORKING AS LINEMAN IN KEB,
AT RAMANAGARA,
R/AT YELIYUR VILLAGE
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
... PETITIONER
(By Sri: KRISHNA S. DIXIT, ASG FOR
SRI: C.N. RAJU, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY MANDYA RURAL POLICE
MANDYA REP BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri: K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
2
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON
BAIL IN CR.NO. 400/2015 OF MANDYA RURAL P.S.,
MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 493,494,
496,420(B),302,201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS CRL. PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who is accused No.1 in Crime No.400/2015. A case is registered by the respondent -police. After concluding investigation, charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 493, 494, 496, 120-B, 302, 201 r/w.Section 34 of IPC. He is in judicial custody for the past 7 months and hence, regular bail application is filed on his behalf. Earlier bail application filed on his behalf before the Sessions Court is already dismissed.
2. Case on hand relates to murder of a person by name Manjunath husband of accused No.3. It is alleged that Manjunath was not looking after his wife. There 3 was lot of differences between them. He had left the house and his whereabouts were not known. It is alleged that the first petitioner married accused No.3 - Mamatha knowing fully well that she was legally wedded wife of Manjunath. It is alleged that Manjunath objected to the same. The accused persons conspired among themselves to eliminate Manjunath who was an obstacle to their relationship.
3. Learned HCGP has vehemently opposed the bail application essentially on the ground that it is too premature to disbelieve the statement of the material witnesses namely CW's-2, 3 and 13. It is argued that knife used by the petitioner to stab the deceased is already recovered at the instance of this petitioner. It is further argued that circumstances are shown enough to indicate the involvement of this petitioner in murdering the deceased.
4
4. Perused the records and heard Sri.Krishna S.Dixit, learned counsel. After perusing the records it is seen that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The statement of the father and mother would go to show that deceased had left the house several months ago. Since his whereabouts were not known, CW-2 had suggested Mamatha that she could marry again. There was a civil dispute between the petitioner, father of the petitioner and brother i.e., CW-3 and the said case ended in compromise.
5. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.2 and this petitioner took the deceased to a secluded place and murdered him. It is alleged that accused No.2 strangulated the neck of the deceased with a rope and this petitioner stabbed the deceased. The post mortem reveals the fact that it is a homicidal death. Similarly placed accused who was involved in murdering the deceased, is already released on bail by 5 this Court in Crl.P.No.1015/2016 on 01.03.2016. Hence, parity is also applicable in the present case.
6. Apart from this, petitioner has undertaken to obey any conditions which may be imposed on him. Thus, the apprehension of the learned HCGP could be suitably addressed by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the following:-
ORDER
a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like-
sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.
b) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper any of the prosecution witnesses.
c) Petitioner shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner.
d) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.
6
e) Petitioner shall attend the Respondent Police Station once in a month on every Second Sunday and mark his attendance between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. without fail, till the case registered against him is disposed of.
f) If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail from the concerned Sessions Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB