Karnataka High Court
S. Sunil @ Kadu vs State By Byatarayanapura Police on 1 February, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10058/2017
BETWEEN:
S Sunil @ Kadu
S/o Srinivas
Aged about 21 years
R/at No.132, 6th Cross
6th Main, Kasturbha Nagar
Mysore Road
Bangalore-560 026. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri Ravi Kumar K M, Adv.)
AND:
State by Byatarayanapura Police
Represented by the
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.67/2017 (S.C.No.1209/2017) of Byatarayanapura P.S.,
Bangalore, for the offence P/U/S 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.67/2017 and now pending in S.C.No.1209/2017 pending on the file of LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city (CCH No.59).
2. Prosecution case as per the complaint averments are, complainant is the father of the deceased. It is stated that on 10.02.2017 at about 6.15 p.m. his wife Smt.Parvathamma telephoned to the complainant that some persons are quarrelling with her son and requested him to come soon. On the said information complainant went near KFC circle, Timber 3 Yard layout and noticed blood on the road and he was informed that his son was shifted to Victoria hospital. Thereafter, himself and his wife went to the hospital and found that some culprits had assaulted Somashekar on the head, face and stomach and caused injuries. Doctor has informed them that Somashekar has succumbed to the injuries and declared him dead. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC against one Sunil and Babu.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that so far as the 4 incident is concerned, complainant is not the eyewitness. Even looking to the other materials collected by the prosecution during investigation there are no direct witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Except the voluntary statement of the petitioner, there is no other material against the petitioner. He has submitted that now investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner-accused No.1 may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that C.Ws.7 and 8 are the witnesses to the incident and they speak about the previous circumstances and the assault made on the deceased. He also submitted that there is a voluntary statement recorded in the case and 5 at the instance of the present petitioner, a long and also a two wheeler vehicle was recovered in the presence of panch witnesses. Hence, it is his submission that prosecution has placed prima facie material as against the petitioner about his involvement in committing the offences. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and entire charge sheet material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner while hearing the petition.
7. Complainant is not the eyewitness to the incident. On the information given that his son has been assaulted, he went to the spot. But, however, in the complaint suspicion has been raised against the petitioner and one Babu. It is only mentioned in the 6 complaint that he came to know from somebody that Sunil @ Kadu and Babu along with others assaulted his son with deadly weapons and committed his murder. Therefore, he is hearsay witness and there are no direct witnesses to the incident. Even looking to the materials collected during investigation, there are no direct witnesses to the incident. Only on the basis that there is a voluntary statement and the recovery of weapon and a two wheeler vehicle, it cannot be said that petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to bail.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police are directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent 7 police station Crime No.67/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp