Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R.B. BUDIHAL, J.
Chethana @ Chethu - Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka, Represented by Learned State Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 3114 of 2017
Decided On : 10-10-2017
BAIL - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the accused based on the lack of prima facie evidence linking him to the alleged offences and the absence of direct allegations against him in the eyewitness statements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The complainant's father was assaulted, and the petitioner was implicated as accused No.3 during the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no prima facie case against the petitioner based on the charge sheet material and the statements of the eyewitnesses. It noted that the complainant was a hearsay witness and that the allegations against the petitioner were limited to keeping a car ready, without direct involvement in the assault.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite being implicated in the case as accused No.3 and the alleged conspiracy with other accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the lack of direct allegations against the petitioner in the eyewitness statements and the matter of conspiracy being a trial issue warranted granting bail, considering the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner/accused No.3 was ordered to be released on bail for the specified offences, subject to certain conditions.
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.192/2016. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 325, 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the son of the deceased is the complainant. It is stated in the complaint that father of the complainant Mr.Mara Hanuma was assaulted by unknown persons at about 9.30 p.m. on 27.6.2016 and this was informed to the complainant by one Kariya, the friend of the complainant through mobile phone and he immediately rushed to the said spot and found that his father was lying in a pool of blood. Thereafter, the complainant informed the jurisdictional police and lodged the complaint before the police. Initially, case was registered for the offence under Section 302 of IPC against unknown persons, but during the course of investigation, present petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.3.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that even perusing the charge sheet material there is no prima facie case as against the petitioner of his involvement in committing the alleged offences. He has submitted to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on regular bail.
5. Per-contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that there was conspiracy between the accused persons and the petitioner though not assaulted the deceased but kept the car ready to facilitate the other accused persons. Hence, he has submitted that he is also completely responsible for the acts done by other accused persons and hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, so also, entire material produced by the petitioner along with the petition.
7. The complainant who is the son of the deceased is a hearsay witness and not the eyewitness. In the complaint it is stated that complainant was informed by one Kariya about the incident and the said Kariya is also not the eyewitness. But perusing the charge sheet material it shows that one Alok Sharma and Narasimhamurthy are the two eyewitness to the incident.
8. I have perused the statement of these two eyewitnesses. Their statement was recorded on 29.6.2016, two days after the incident. Even looking to their statements, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, there is no allegation that he was holding deadly weapon and assaulted the deceased. On 1.7.2016 further statement of the said eyewitnesses came to be recorded. Perusing the said statement also it is stated that Chetan, the accused No.3 herein has kept the Santro car ready. Except this, there is no allegation as against the petitioner herein.
9. It is no doubt true that the learned HCGP has submitted that there is conspiracy between all the accused and hence, the present petitioner is also responsible. Whether there was conspiracy by the petitioner with other accused persons or not is a matter of trial. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioner can be granted with bail.
10. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 325, 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered in Crime No.192/2016, subject to the f
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
