AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2 along with several others. It was the case of the prosecution that one T.C. Raja and the complainant had visited a hospital situated in Mallathalli, as T.C. Raja was said to be unwell and after taking treatment when they were returning in an auto-rickshaw, it was stated that it was waylaid at about 12.30 p.m. by six unknown persons and it is stated that all of them had proceeded to assault T.C. Raja as well as the complainant, resulting in the wrist of T.C. Raja being chopped off and his hand had fallen to the ground. He had suffered several grievous injuries on all parts of his body and he had succumbed to the injuries. The complaint was lodged against unknown persons. It is later that seven accused were arrested including the present petitioner, though his name did not figure in the F.I.R. and it is only in the charge-sheet that he has been named as an accused of having assaulted the deceased on his head with a sword and it is in this background that the petitioner had approached the court below, which has rejected the bail application on the say of the Public Prosecutor that the complainant had identified him at a Test Identification Parade and that the complainant himself was an injured eye-witness. It is this very objection which is reiterated by the learned Government Pleader before this court.
However, it is noticed that the allegations against all the accused were identical of each of them carrying deadly weapons and having assaulted the deceased. This court having thought it fit to grant bail to two of the accused in Criminal Petition No.6348/2015 dated 7.10.2015 and Crl.P.8330/2015 dated 18.01.2016, the present petitioner who has been in custody only on the basis of the voluntary statement of the accused and on the basis of the alleged identification by the complainant, who was a stranger to the present accused, the petitioner being indefinitely incarcerated without the charges being framed even as on date and the petitioner having been in custody for over one year and 8 months, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Hence, the petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(iii) The petitioner shall attend the court on all dates of hearing and shall co-operate with the Investigating Authority.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court below without prior permission.