Michael @ Loosmada vs St By J P Nagar Police on 23 July, 2013

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Michael @ Loosmada vs St By J P Nagar Police on 23 July, 2013

Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das

                             1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2013

                           BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2402/2013

Between:

Michael @ Loosmada
S/o Ramalingam
Aged about 21 years
R/at, No.1011, Ragigudda Slum
KSRTC Layout
J.P. Nagar 2nd Stage
Bangalore - 560 078.                         ... Petitioner

(By Smt. N. Padmavathi, Adv.)

And:

St. by J.P. Nagar Police
Bangalore - 560 078.                       .... Respondent

(By Sri G.M. Sreenivasa Reddy, HCGP)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the in
CR.No. 970/2010 of J.P. Nagar Police Station, Bangalore
City, pending on the file of the P.O., FTC-VII, Bangalore
City and S.C.No.1374/2011, for the offence P/U/S 143,
144,147, 148, 302 &149 of IPC.


      This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:
                              2




                         ORDER

Petitioner is the accused No.4 in Crime No.97/2010 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 149 of IPC. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed.

2. Earlier bail application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected with a liberty to renew the petition after charges are framed. It is brought to my notice that now the charges are framed. For the last 2 ½ years the petitioner is in custody. The Supreme Court in (1995) 5 SCC 607, Sunil K Sinha -vs- State of Bihar held that delay in conclusion of trial is one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration for grant of bail.

3. The complainant is the mother of the deceased and she is the eye witness to the incident. In the complaint the name of this petitioner do not find a place. CW-2 brother of the deceased and he is also the eye witness to the incident. At the time of inquest, the statement of CW-2 was recorded and there is no mention 3 of the presence of petitioner at the time of incident. Later the name of the petitioner is included in the further statement. In these circumstances, there are no compelling circumstances warranting the continuance of the petitioner in custody. Accordingly the following:

ORDER The petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety for a like-sum to the satisfaction of the Court below

ii) On all hearing dates, the petitioner shall be present before the Trial Court.

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without prior permission.

iv) The petitioner shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

Violation of any one of the conditions above will result in cancellation of bail order. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE HR*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court