Bharath vs The State of Kanakapura Town Police Station

L. Narayana Swamy, J—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the application filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C.

Petitioner is accused No. 6 in a criminal case registered in Crime No. 189/2014 on the file of Kanakapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 506, & 302 and r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Petitioner is in judicial custody since 9.10.2014. Hence he filed this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking his release.

The case on hand relates to the murder of one Manju K.G. The complaint was given by the brother of the deceased stating that his brother Manju K.G. did not returned to home till 3.15 AM and further alleged that at 3.15 am police came near their house and informed to his another elder brother that Manju K.G. has been murdered in Ashwini Bar and Restaurant when he and his brother gone to the spot and seen his brother Manju K.G. lying dead in front of the cash counter and they saw the blood stains injuries on head and 10-15 stab injuries on neck and stomach and intestine came outside and 8-10 beer bottles broken pieces at the spot and also noticed blood stains on the floor. When enquired with the bar workers they stated that there was a quarrel between Manju K.G. and Santhosh at that time Punith, Mohana, Karthika, Bheema, Bharatha and Naveena who are present supported Santhosh, Santhosh immediately took a beer bottle and broken the same and stabbed on neck and stomach and others also took the broken beer bottles and 8-10 time stabbed on stomach of Manju K.G. Punitha drag the intestine outside due to that his brother died.

After registering the case the police conducted spot mahazar inquest under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., and they recorded the statement of relatives of the deceased.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name or identity of this petitioner is not mentioned. The entire case of the prosecution stands only on statement of CW-1 and during inquest proceeding in Col. No. III and IV it is mentioned accused No. 1, 2, & 4 and others assaulted the deceased, there is no reference of name of this petitioner and after though, petitioner''s name is included in the case. He further submits that investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. No recovery is made at the instance of this petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody since more than 2 years. Hence, he requested this court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is prima facie case against this petitioner about active participation in the murder of Manju K.G. It is further argued that this petitioner along with other accused have committed heinous offence of committing murder which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, he requests this court to dismiss the bail application.

As could be seen from the records, there is no specific mention of the name of this petitioner - accused No. 6. Further, it is clear from the material on record that main allegations are against accused persons-1, 2 & 4. This petitioner - accused No. 6 is in judicial custody for more than two years and he is not required for any further interrogation as also the petitioner undertake to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court, he is entitled to be released on bail. Thus, the apprehension of the learned Government Pleader could be suitably met by imposing proper conditions.

Accordingly, the petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail in Crime No. 189/2014 of respondent police, subject to the following conditions:

"1) He shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

2) He shall mark attendance once in a month on the second Sunday of every month in the jurisdictional Police Station between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. for a period of six months from the date of his release;

3) He shall not hold out threat to prosecution witnesses or tamper with evidence;

4) He shall attend the court on all dates of hearing, except under unavoidable circumstances;

5) Any two successive failure in appearing before the trial court, he is not entitled for the benefit of bail, the bail stands automatically cancelled and the learned sessions Judge is directed to pass appropriate orders in remanding the petitioner in case of his lapse in appearance."

If he violates any of the above conditions, prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.