AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M G Uma, J
The petitioner-accused is seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No. 217/2023 of Pandavapura Police Station, pending in C.C.No.1099/2023 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C. Court, Pandavapura registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Smt. Sumarani B.
Heard Sri. Raju C.N., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:
REASONS
The petitioner being accused No.3 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 20.09.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Initially, missing complaint came to be filed by the father of the deceased. Later, on suspicion, FIR came to be registered against accused No.1. It is stated that voluntary statement of accused No.1 was recorded and he has confessed regarding commission of offence by accused Nos.1 to 3. Accordingly, this petitioner was also apprehended. After investigation, charge sheet is filed against accused Nos. 1 to 3. It is stated that accused No.2 is dead and the case against him stands abated. Accused No.1 is in judicial custody.
It is pertinent to note that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and there is no recovery at the instance of the petitioner. It is stated that neither dead body nor the skeleton of the body isrecovered or found. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is having any criminal antecedents. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution witnesses.
Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 217/2023 of Pandavapura Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.
If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.