Sunil @ Sunil Kumar vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 4 in a case for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 396, 397, 94 read with 34 of I.P.C. It transpires that one Manu who is accused No. 1 was known to Tejaswini wife of Ranga-CW1. It is alleged that the accused No. 1 knew that there were valuables in the house of Tejaswini and Ranga and therefore had plotted to commit dacoity. When he knew that Ranga, husband of Tejaswini was away on 30.9.2013, he along with the accused Nos. 2 and 3 came in a taxi bearing registration No. KA-01-D-7857 driven by the present petitioner and had proceeded to the house of Tejaswini, smothered her and after having killed her, looted the house. It is thereafter that on suspicion that accused No. 1 was taken into custody and the petitioner as well, as being involved in the commission of the crime along with the accused Nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner having approached the Court below in seeking bail, the same has been rejected on the ground that the offence is a serious one and that the complicity of the petitioner along with the other accused is established as the car driven by him was utilised in the commission of the offence and on that basis, the bail application having been rejected, the petitioner is before this Court.

Though it is indeed a serious offence involving the three accused, even according to the case of the prosecution, the involvement of the petitioner was in driving the car, which was a taxi. Therefore the possibility of the taxi having been engaged by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be ruled out and the presence of the present petitioner also being totally innocent cannot be disbelieved as he would not have known as to what the other accused were upto, in the commission of the offence, even though he had waited outside the house of the deceased at the time of the incident. In the absence of any incriminating material as for instant, the petitioner also having been found possessing a share in the loot, it would be difficult to hold that the petitioner was indeed a part of the group and therefore there is an area of doubt as to the involvement of the petitioner as one of the assailants or in the abetment of the crime. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement of bail.

Accordingly, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:-

The petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a self bond in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one solvent surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below. The petitioner shall attend the court on all dates of hearing. The petitioner shall not seek to influence or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court below without the prior permission of the court.