Karnataka High Court
Y M Muniraju vs State Of Karnataka By on 12 February, 2015
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.13 OF 2015
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7704 OF 2014
IN CRL.P.13 OF 2015:
BETWEEN:
Y.M. Muniraju,
Son of Muniyellappa,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at Yarandahalli Village,
Janatha Colony, Jigani Hobli,
Anekal Taluk 563 201.
(Accused No.1)
(in Judicial Custody)
...PETITIONER
(By Shri. K. Ram Singh, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka by
Hebbugodi Police Station,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
Represented by Government Pleader,
2
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(By Shri. K. Nageshwarappa, Government Pleader)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the
code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in Crime No.182/2014 of Hebbagodi Police
Station, Bengaluru District, for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 201, 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
IN CRL.P.7704/2014:
BETWEEN:
B.V.Harisha,
Son of Visakantegowda,
Aged about 29years,
Residing at #1080,
Vinayakanagar, Jigani Village,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District - 562 106.
(Now he is in Central Prison,
Bangalore.) ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. G. Manjunath, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka by
Hebbugodi Police Station 560 099,
Bangalore District.
(represented by Public Prosecutor) ...RESPONDENT
3
(By Shri. K. Nageshwarappa, Government Pleader)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the
code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in Crime No.182/2014 of Hebbagodi Police
Station, Bangalore District, for the offences punishable under
Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860.
These petitions coming on for Orders this day, the court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
The petitioners in these petitions are accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. They are alleged to have committed the murder of the brother of the complainant. The complainant one Vinod Kumar had stated that his brother Kanthakumar was working at Biocon Park, Bommasandra, Jigani Link Road, Anekal Taluk. It is alleged that on 15.03.2014, the deceased Kanthakumar had left work at 2.30 p.m. on his motor cycle bearing No.KA- 51/EF-3545 but never reached home and thereafter since he did 4 not turn up at all, the complainant had made a search for him and enquired with his friends and relatives as to the whereabouts of Kanthakumar and he was even more perturbed that two of Kanthakumar's cell phones were not reachable and were switched off and therefore, the complainant had gone to the Police Station on 17.03.2014 and while he was narrating the circumstance, an unknown person had intimated the Sub- Inspector of Police that a dead body was found in the lake in between the rocks of Hulimangala Village and therefore the Sub-Inspector had taken the complainant along with him to see if the dead body belonged to his brother and by coincidence, the dead body was in fact his brother's and it was seen that his face was tied with gunny bag and he was strangulated. His vehicle was not found anywhere in the vicinity. A case was registered against unknown persons. It is on the alleged voluntary statements of the accused that alleged recoveries were made of the gold chain and the ring belonging to the deceased as well as a knife said to have been used in the commission of the offence 5 and recovery of the motor cycle at the instance of the petitioners, that they have been taken into custody.
The petitioners having approached the court below seeking bail, the same has been rejected while noticing that there is strong circumstantial evidence against the petitioners. However, on closer perusal of the papers, it is evident that except the knife said to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioners, there is no other incriminating material which is said to have been recovered from the petitioners. Mere recovery of a knife would not render the same as being the murder weapon and it would have to be established at the trial. Therefore, the petitioners have made out a case for enlargement on bail. The petitions are allowed and the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) Each of the petitioners shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below.6
(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(iii) The petitioners shall attend the court on all dates of hearing and shall co-operate with the Investigating Authority.
(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court below without prior permission.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS