Ramdas vs State By Rajagopal Nagar P.S

K.Natarajan, J

This successive bail petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.315/2020

registered by Rajagopal Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 307, 302, 364, 201 read with Section 149

of IPC and now pending on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.20508/2020.

Heard the arguments of learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant-Rajkumar Jodatti, the father of the deceased â€"Mahesh Gowda filed a complaint to the Police

on 23.10.2020 for kidnapping under Section 365 of IPC and he has stated that on 18.10.2020, his son had been to his residence and later there was

some quarrel between the accused and his deceased son in connection with the money transaction. On that background, on 21.10.2020 at 2.00 p.m.,

when he telephoned to his son, he told has received due amount from Prabhakar and returned back by next day. But till 23.10.2020, he did not return,

he suspected the Prabhakar, Ravi and Krishna. Initially, the Police registered the case showing accused Nos.1 and 2 in the FIR and the investigation

revealed, after arresting the accused, it was revealed that the deceased used to threaten Krishna by asking to return the due amount. Therefore, the

said Krishna hatched conspiracy with this petitioner-accused and they asked the deceased to board the car and took him to the land of accused No.1,

they made him to drink the alcohol and committed murder with the help of accused Nos.3 to 5. Subsequently, the Police arrested this petitioner on

26.10.2020 and he was remanded to the judicial custody. His bail petition came to be rejected by this Court in Crl.P.No.1287/2021 dated 22.06.2021.

Now the petitioner has come up with additional grounds.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that his name is not found in the FIR, but was added only in the charge-sheet. The only

connected material is recovery of the blood stained cloth and which was not able to show as the said cloth was sent to the FSL. Even FSL report does

not connected with accused as the blood stained cloth is not proved the blood stained belongs to the deceased. Therefore, prayed for granting bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the same and produced the FSL report and prayed for dismissing the petition.

On perusal of the same, of course the name of the petitioner is not arrayed as accused in the FIR but it was added in the charge-sheet and on the

voluntary statement the Police seized the blood stained cloth which is said to be yellow and black colour shirt where the Police have sent red and

yellow colour shirt to the FSL and FSL report reveals that the shirt is having blood stains but the pant has no blood stains. However, the blood stains

found in the shirt is not sufficient for the serological analysis as per report. Therefore, they could not give any opinion. Such being the case, I am of the

view, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, by imposing certain conditions, if bail is granted no prejudice would be caused to the

prosecution case. Hence, I pass the following

ORDER

Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed.

The Committal Court/Trial Court is directed to release petitioner-accused No.2 on bail in Crime No.315/2020 registered by Rajagopal Nagar Police

Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 307, 302, 364, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC, subject to the following

conditions:

(i) Petitioner-accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two sureties for the

likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Committal Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly; and

(iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial Court.