AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Pinto
These petitions are filed seeking bail in Crime No. 66/2011 of Sulla Police station, Dakshin Kannada District registered on 29.04.2011 for the offence punishable u/s 302 r/w Sec 34 of IPC.
It is the case of the prosecution ''that, when the complainant and the deceased were having evening walk at about 7.30 p.m., deceased was assaulted by some unknown person, on Ambadaka Road, near Krishna Ayurtheropy clink who suddenly came out of the bushes. The deceased fell down and thereafter, he was shifted to the hospital, where he was declared dead. During investigation these petitioner were arrested and were committed to custody.
Investigation in this crime revealed that, Accused No. 5 and 6 who were petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 5446/2011 were hired assailants and accused No. 3 and 4 facilitated by financing them in the commission of the offence. It is further case of the prosecution that, Accused'' No. 4 introduced Accused No. 2 and 3. It is further case of the prosecution that, accused No. 3 supplied motor cycle and weapons to accused No. 5 and 6 in the commission of the offences.
Heard Sri R.B. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijaykumar Majage, learned. HCGP for the State/Respondent in both the petitions.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, one Manoj Rei who is arraigned as Accused No. 2 and against whom specific overt acts has been alleged has been granted bail In Criminal Petition No. 4451/2011, It is also submitted by him that, Accused No. 7, Nagesh Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by Fast Track Court,. Puttur. It is also submitted by him that, the identification parade conducted in respect of the involvement of Accused No. 5 and 6 namely Shankar and Sharan did not reveal the involvement of the said petitioners, Since, the eye witnesses Sailed to identify them in the teat identification parade and since there is no materials about involvement of the petitioners in the commission of offences, they may be treated on par with the accused who has been granted bail by this Court
Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, learned HCGP on the other hand strenuously opposes the application for bail to the petitioners namely accused No. 5 and 6 stating that, there is recovery of blood stained cloths and weapons used in the commission of the offence at the instance of Accused No. 3 in the farm house of Accused No. 1. He also further submits that, there is change of number plate of pu(sic)ar vehicle and it is seized from the house of Accused No. 1. He further submits that, cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- was seized from Accused No. 3 and a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was seized from the possession Accused No. 4, He further submits that, cash of Rs. 8,50,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- was recovered from the possession of Accused No. 5 and 6 respectively.
I have gone through the materials of the prosecution, However, since the prosecution witnesses do not clearly indicate the involvement of the petitioners and that accused No. 2 and 7 have teen granted bail, I am of the opinion that, petitioners are mho entitled for bail.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The petitioners are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Court below.