Karnataka High Court
Sridhar M S vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2019
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5860/2019
BETWEEN:
Sridhar M S
S/o Late Srinivas
Aged about 35 years
R/at # 752/1
Nala Road, K R Mohalla
Mysuru-560 024.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. K.A.Chandrashekara, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
By the Police of
Bannur Police Station
Bengaluru-571 101
Represented by SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri.Honnappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.20/2019 of Bannur Police Station, Mysuru District
2
for the offence p/u/s 364-A, 302, 201 and 120-B read
with Section 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.20/2019 of Bannur Police Station, Mysuru District, for the offence punishable under Sections 364-A, 302, 201 and 120-B read with Section 149 of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet papers are that the accused No.1 and the deceased by name Chendil had some business transaction with each other. For the purpose of extracting money from deceased-Chendil, the accused No.1 called him over phone on 28.01.2019 by offering that he would get edible oil to him at a cheaper rate. By that time, accused No.1 has 3 conspired with other accused Nos. 2 to 6. As per the direction of accused No.1, accused Nos. 2 and 3 brought the said Chendil on scooter and accused No.1 brought accused No.6 on his scooter. Thereafter, all of them went in a car to Ranganathapura, backside of Tissue Factory. All accused persons threatened said Chendil with dire consequences of killing him and told him to secure an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from the house. Accordingly, he made a telephone call to his brother-in-law-Neelakant. In turn, Neelakant secured Rs.2,22,000/- which was received by accused No.6. Thereafter, it is alleged that accused No.1 has called to accused No.5 and directed to finish off Chendil. Accordingly, accused Nos. 2 to 5 have strangled the neck of the deceased with a telephone wire and committed murder and thrown the body of Chendil to Biderahalli Gundi.
4. The entire charge-sheet paper reveals that it is a conspiracy of accused Nos.1 to 6 and as per the 4 direction of accused No.1, all other accused have acted upon. The said conspiracy has to be proved during the course of full fledged trial. It is only on the basis of inter-se statements of the accused persons, implicated this petitioner with reference to the conspiracy. Accused No.1 actually was not present when the murder of Chendil was committed by accused Nos. 2 to 5. The relationship between the accused No.1 with that of accused Nos. 2 to 5 has to be established along with conspiracy between them during the course of full dressed trial.
5. Looking to the above stated facts, when the matter is purely based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused No.1 who is cited as absentee abettor and conspirator, have to be proved during the course of full fledged trial.
5
Under the above said circumstances, the petitioner- accused No.1 is entitled to be enlarged on bail, particularly, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner- accused No.1 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.20/2019 of Bannur Police Station, Mysuru District registered for the offence punishable under Sections 364-A, 302, 201 and 120-B read with Section 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.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 6 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 SB