AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Rachaiah, J
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent – State.
It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.2 had intention to get the teacher to be transferred from Hoolikatti school to some other school. Therefore, he contacted accused No.1 and expressed his intention with accused No.1. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 took the help of accused No.3 and utilized as a weapon CW10 who is a minor for the purpose of mixing the juice contained insecticide into the water tank of the school.
It is further stated that based on the complaint of the complainant, the complaint came to be registered against the petitioner and others. The respondent-Police after conducting investigation submitted the charge sheet.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The allegations made against the petitioner are baseless and bald.
It is further submitted that the petitioner is aged about 26 years and permanent resident of Hoolikatti village, Saundatti Taluk. He is ready to abide by conditions imposed by this Court in the event of release on bail. Making such submissions learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently submitted that the petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.1 had assisted accused No.2 in executing the work of mixing the poison with the water of which the students are drinking from the water tank. There are several students had sustained severe health hazardous. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for.
Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the record that the petitioner to assist the accused No.2 in mixing the poison into the water tank situated in the school with the help of CW10. The entire allegations made against him only on the basis of hearsay evidence. Moreover, CW10 even though he is appeared to be the witness to the incident, he ought to have been arrayed as accused. Thereafter, pardon as envisaged under Section 307 of Cr.P.C., had to be extended and he should have been treated as approval.
Since, there is mis-conception of law and also the facts of the case, it is appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Criminal petition is allowed.
The petitioner-accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.244/2025 of Saundatti Circle Police Station on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court till disposal of the case.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail.
(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal case or of similar nature, till disposal of the case.