AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—In these two petitions filed u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure., Petitioners have sought for bail in connection with Cr. No. 51/2010 of Nagamangala Police Station, Mandya District.
Petitioner in Crl.P. No. 3957/2010 has been arrayed as Accused No. 2 while the Petitioner in Crl.P. 5355/2010 has been arrayed as Accused No. 1 in the said case.
According to the case of prosecution, One Venkatesh, Resident of No. 147, Maruthinagara, Sonnenahalli, Bangalore - 56, went missing from 11.05.2008. As he was not traced till 24.05.2008, his wife Smt. Anusuyabai. N. lodged a report with Bidadi Police Station about missing of her husband from 11.05.2008. On the basis of the said report, Bidadi Police registered the case in Cr. No. 255/2008 for man missing on 13.05.2008 and took steps to trace the missing person. On 03.02.2010, these two Petitioners along with another person by name Venkatachalaiah arrayed as accused No. 3 were arrested in connection with Cr. No. 28/ 2009 by Kadugondanahalli Police. During interrogation, these Petitioners made voluntary statement about their involvement in the murder of Venkatesh, During investigation it was revealed that the accused persons after committing the murder of the deceased, burnt the dead body within the limits of Nagamangala Rural Police Station. Therefore, the case papers were transferred to Nagamangala Rural Police who, based on the said report registered case in Cr. No. 51/2010 for offences u/s 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC. During investigation, pursuant to the voluntary statement of Accused No. 2, two gold rings and a Car, said to have been used in the commission of the offence were recovered. At the instance of Accused No. 3, one motor cycle belonging to him was: recovered, During investigation, the seized gold rings were identified by the wife of the deceased as belonging to the deceased. According to the case of the prosecution, at the place where the dead body was burnt, only few pieces of bones were recovered.
After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed.
The application filed by the Petitioners for grant of bail before the learned Sessions Judge came to be rejected. Therefore, the Petitioners are before this Court u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure.
The petitions are opposed by the Respondent-State.
I have heard both sides and perused the records.
At this stage, the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence, as there are no eye witnesses to the incident As noticed supra, initially, the case was registered for missing of the person based on the complaint lodged by the wife of one Venkatesh. The said person went missing from the house on 11.05.2008. The complaint about his missing from the house was lodged on 25.05.2008. In the complaint, what has been stated is that he was wearing a pink colour shirt and a black colour pant when he left the house for the last time. According to the complaint, he left the house on TVS Victor KA-02-EL-6979 and he had carried a mobile phone bearing No. 9886678939. Though, according to the prosecution, during investigation, pieces of bones were recovered, those bone pieces appears to have not been subjected to forensic examination. At this stage, there is no prima-facie evidence to connect those bone pieces to the person found missing on 11.05.2008. As per the case of the prosecution the only link to connect Accused No. 2 is the recovery of two gold rings belonging to the deceased. In the complaint, as noticed supra, there is no mention about the deceased wearing two gold rings at the time of leaving the house for the last time. No recovery has been effected at the instance of Accused No. 1 Recovery of the Car belonging to Accused No. 2 at his instance does not prima-facie incriminate him, as there is no prima-facie evidence to indiate that the said Car was used in the commission of the offence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that, at this stage, there are no prima-facie evidences to connect the Petitioners to the alleged offence. Admittedly, the accused persons are permanent residents of Bangalore City. The apprehension of the prosecution could be allayed by imposing certain conditions. In this view of the matter, Petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 51/2010 of Nagamangala Police Station, subject to each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Magistrate/ Sessions Judge and subject to further condition that the Petitioners shall not tamper the Prosecution witnesses in any manner and they shall appear before the learned Magistrate and also Sessions court oil all hearing dates without fail.