Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandrashekar vs State Of Karnataka on 21 August, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6325/2017
BETWEEN
SRI CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O.VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.491, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
9TH CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR,
KAVIKA LAYOUT,
MYSURU ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 026
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SATYANARAYAN, FOR
SRI LOKESH R. YADAV ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION,
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-01
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.89/2017 OF BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION,
2
BENGALURU, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 READ WITH 34 OF I.P.C..
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is charge sheeted by the respondent- police along with the co-accused for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC.
2. The allegation is, this petitioner had illicit relationship with Accused No.1/wife of the deceased. CW.10-Ruchita is the daughter of deceased and Accused No.1. The deceased intended to dispose of the house property and divorce his wife in view of her illicit relationship. On 24.02.2017 he handed over the property document to his sister CW.1 and on the next date during night hours accused Nos.1 and 2 together kicked on his private part, felled him on floor and throttled him to death.
3
3. CW.10-Ruchita is said to be sole eyewitness to the incident. Her statement is recorded on 02.03.2017 wherein she has stated about the overt act of both accused persons.
4. Sri Sathyanarayan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner was not cited in the complaint and also in inquest mahazar. In the remand application produced before the Court on 04.03.2017 it is not even spelled about recording of the statement of eyewitness CW.10-Ruchita. The petitioner is aged about 20 years and there could not be any extra marital relationship between him and Accused No.1. No one have seen him entering the house of the deceased immediately prior to the incident or leaving the house subsequent to the incident. Recording of statement of eyewitness creates suspension. The investigation having been complete he may be enlarged on 4 bail and he undertakes to abide any conditions that may be imposed on him.
5. In reply, learned HCGP opposing the petition submits that the P.M. Report corroborates with the prosecution case. Totally 10 injuries were found on the dead body and injury Nos.9 and 10 were contusion on the private part of the deceased. As per the medical opinion, death is due to asphyxia as a result of manual compression of neck. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Injuries found on the dead body must have been caused by two culprits though may be a probability, for the disposal of the bail petition what gains the notice of this Court is, investigation is complete, petitioner is said to be permanent resident of cause title address without antecedents and the material witnesses are all the kith and kin of the deceased. 5
7. Hence, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is enlarged on bail on his executing self bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one local surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. He shall mark his attendance before the S.H.O. of respondent-Police Station on every alternate Tuesday till completion of the trial. He shall not threaten the complainant and the prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sbs*