Karnataka High Court
Thakur Sachin Singh @Sunny vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 October, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201373/2021
BETWEEN:
THAKUR SACHIN SINGH @ SUNNY
S/O DILIP SINGH THAKUR
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: FOOD PARCEL
WORKER AT SATKAR HOTEL
R/O RAJPUT COLONY, WALKOTI, BIDAR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH TOWN POLICE STATION
BIDAR, NOW REPRESENTED BY
THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585105
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
PETITION AND RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.10/2021 OF BIDAR TOWN POLICE STATION, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 114, 120(B), 201,
302, 364 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE
2
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR, IN
S.C.NO.45/2021.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., by accused No.2 seeking regular bail in Crime No.10/2021 of Bidar Town Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 120(B), 201, 302, 364 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that petitioner was watching outside the house when accused No.1 was committing the murder of the deceased and thereafter, assisted him in disposing the body in order to screen the offence.
3
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The only allegation made against the petitioner is that the petitioner helped accused No.1 in packing the dead body in a gunny bag and tied the gunny with the help of wire. In order to destroy the same, transported the dead body in the motorcycle and threw the same in a ditch. The mobile of deceased was used by this petitioner. When he had received the message he immediately switched off the mobile. The police also while filing the charge sheet against this petitioner invoked the offences under Sections 114 and 201 of IPC and also under Section 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that no overt act allegation against this petitioner in eliminating the deceased and the offences which have been invoked against this petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
4
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that on 12.02.2021 at around 12:30 p.m. when accused No.1 called the deceased over the phone and also in turn he called accused No.2 and accused No.3 to come over to his house and instructed this petitioner to watch in the entrance of the door and accused No.1 committed the murder of the deceased. This petitioner knowing fully well the intention to take away the life assisted accused No.1 and conspired with accused No.1 and caused abatement in taking away the life. Thereafter, he was also a part of screening away the evidence of heinous offence of murder. Hence, he is not entitled for bail.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and on perusal of the charge sheet material, the allegations against this petitioner is that he was watching outside the house and thereafter, he had joined hands with accused No.1 in 5 screening away the evidence of committing the murder in transporting the body and throwing the same in a ditch.
7. Having considered the gravity of the offences and the allegations made against this petitioner, there is no any overt act allegation against the petitioner in committing the murder. The only allegation against him is that he also abated an offence of committing the murder but he was also a part of the conspiracy. All these aspects has to be considered only during the course of the trial and so also in respect of screening away the evidence. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail with certain conditions.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.2 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.10/2021 of Bidar Town Police 6 Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 120(B), 201, 302, 364 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB/cp*