Rama @ Appi, Jagadisha @ Jagga and Sunil Kumar Swamy vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—The Petitioners have been arraigned as accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in CC. No. 376/11 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. These Petitioners along with others ''are charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 324 and 302 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code.

One Manjunath is the deceased in this case. According to the case of the prosecution, CW.1-Gajendra appeared before Police Inspector, Hebbagodi Police Station in Anekal Taluk at about 10.00 p.m. on 3.1.2011 and presented a written report based on which the police registered the case in Grime No. 5/11 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 307 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code. In the said written report, it had been alleged that on that day, at about 7.30 p.m. while he as pillion rider was proceeding in a motor cycle ridden by Manjunath of Ramasagar Village in Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, near Chandrapura Shandi Road, one Madhu, Rajesh, Sriram (Petitioner No. 1 herein), Sunil (Petitioner No. 3), Ravi and Naveen along with others way laid said Manjunath and made him to stop the motor cycle and by ''stating that he is loving one Subhashini, a relative of Rajesh, Madhu stabbed Manjunath with a knife on the inter coastal space and thereafter he fell down from the motor cycle then all the assailants assaulted him with hands and kicked him and on seeking some vehicle coming on the way, all the assailants ran away from the place and thereafter he shifted the injured Manjunath to Chakra Hospital in Chandrapura and from there to Sparsha Hospital where he was admitted as inpatient for treatment. At about 00.15 hours on 4.1.2011, said injured succumbed to the injuries. On receipt of the death memo, offence u/s 302 Indian Penal Code was added. Thereafter inquest was held over the dead body. During investigation, the blood relatives of the deceased as well as other witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. Thereafter the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. The Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination noticed one stab injury and an incised wound on the front side of the chest and he was of the opinion that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to internal organs. During investigation, it was revealed that CW.4-Naveen and CW.5-Muttu Keshava were two other eye-witnesses to the incident apart from the complainant. The statements of CWs. 4 and 5 said to have been recorded on 8.1.2011 revealed that the first Petitioner herein was the person who inflicted fatal blow on the deceased. Their statements said to have revealed that the person arraigned as accused No. 1 namely Madhu, accused No. 2 - Rajesh and Accused No. 6 - Naveen had not participated in the incident. Therefore, subsequently;, the further statement of the complainant also said to have been recorded and based on these information, accused No. 1-Madhu, accused No. 2-Rajesh and accused No. 6-Naveen were deleted and Petitioner No. 1 who had been arraigned as accused No. 3 at that stage was arraigned as accused No. 1; Petitioner No. 3 who had been arraigned as accused No. 4 was arraigned as accused No. 2, while Petitioner No. 2 who had not been arraigned as accused earlier was arraigned as accused No. 3. Thereafter, the Petitioners were apprehended and at the instance of accused No. 1, a knife said to have been used in the commission of the offence came to be recovered. Thereafter when they were produced before the learned Magistrate, they were remanded to judicial custody. As their prayer for bail came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, the Petitioners are before this Court seeking bail.

The petition is opposed by the Respondent -State.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides. Perused the records made available.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is as under:

that at this stage there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioners are guilty of any of the offences alleged and they have been falsely implicated in case; that the name of the second Petitioner did not figure in the FIR and subsequently he has been implicated in the case; even according to contents of FIR it was Madhu, who inflicted fatal blow on the deceased and the overt acts attributed to accused Nos. 1 and 3 therein was only that they assaulted deceased by hand and kicked him by legs as such the alleged act of assault by Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 was not responsible for the death of the deceased as such ingredients of Section 302 Indian Penal Code is not attracted as against them, therefore, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

I have bestowed my serious considerations to the submissions made by learned Counsel en both sides.

As noticed supra in the FIR lodged by CW. 1-Gajendra who was stated to be an eye-witness and who was proceeding as pillion rider along with deceased, did not indicate the presence of second Petitioner at the scene of occurrence. As per the said FIR, Madhu who had been arraigned as accused No. 1 in the initial stage inflicted fatal blow to the deceased. The medical evidence available on record prima facie indicates that the cause of death was injury sustained to the internal organs which was sequal to stab wound sustained by the deceased. The overt act attributed against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 in the FIR was that they assaulted the deceased by hands an kicked him by legs. of course as noticed supra, subsequently, in the statement of the alleged eye-witness the role of the Petitioner No. 1 is that he inflicted fatal blow on the deceased. However, regard being had to the overt acts alleged against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 in the FIR, and since, in the FIR the presence of second Petitioner was(sic) indicated. I am of the considered opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioners are guilty of the offences alleged. The Petitioners have been in judicial custody since 17.1.2011. Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. The apprehension of the prosecution could be allayed by imposing strict conditions.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The Petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with C.C. No. 376/2011 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (crime No. 5/11 of Hebbagodi Police Station, Ahekal) on each of them executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate/ Sessions Judge and subject to further conditions that:

i) the Petitioners shall not tamper or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

ii) the Petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate/Sessions Judge on all the dates of hearing without fail;

iii) the Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions without express permission of thereof and

iv) that the Petitioners shall mark their attendance with the Jurisdictional Police on every 10th and 25th of each calendar month till the disposal of the case.