Amruthesh vs The State

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in respect of a case registered against the petitioner and others in Cr. No. 161/14 by Banavara Police, Hassan District, for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 328, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC. Petitioner is accused No. 3 in the said case and has been in judicial custody since 17/8/2014.

Bail application filed on his behalf has already been dismissed by the Principal Sessions Judge at Hassan on 5/9/2014 in Crl. Misc. No. 978/14.

Learned Government Pleader has opposed the bail application on the ground that prima facie case is made out about the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged murder of Miss Kavya, D/o. Lokesha and Kavitha, accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have murdered their own daughter Kavya by mixing poison in the food and tied a rope around her neck and later on tied to a tree behind their house so as to project as though Kavya herself committed suicide. It is further alleged that this was done in consultation with the present petitioner, accused No. 3, who is the brother of accused No. 1.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that though the records do not disclose, at this stage, about the actual participation of the present petitioner in murdering Kavya, there is clinching material on record to show that the said murder is committed by accused Nos. 1 and 2, after consulting accused No. 3, petitioner herein. Therefore it is argued that Sec. 34 of IPC is very much applicable to the facts of the case.

After perusing the records, inclusive of the remand application filed before the court by Police, prima facie material is forthcoming about the alleged actual participation of accused Nos. 1 and 2, in regard to the alleged murder of their own daughter Kavya, who was stated to be involved in immoral activities, much against their wishes. It is a very moot point, at this stage, as to whether Sec. 34 of IPC could be made applicable to this accused on the ground of being consulted by accused Nos. 1 and 2. Suffice to state that accused No. 3 has been in judicial custody for more than 50 days and substantial investigation is already over. Whether the statement said to have been given by accused Nos. 1 and 2 about their consultation with accused No. 3, would be admissible in evidence or not, is a matter to be considered at the time of trial. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and since there is no direct evidence about the actual participation of the present petitioner in the alleged murder of Kavya, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, subject to certain conditions.

It is made clear that whatever observations are made by this court, is limited to the extent of disposing of the bail application and shall not influence the lower court to dispose of the case on merits.

In this view of the matter, petition is allowed and bail is granted to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties, for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper any of the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) Petitioner shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

(iv) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities.

(v) Petitioner shall attend the Sessions Court regularly on all dates of hearing and shall co-operate with the I.O. in conducting further trial.