1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6848 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
KENCHAPPA @ KENCHA
S/O.LATE RUDRAPPA
AGED 23 YEARS
R/AT.BESIDE JUNIOR COLLEGE
K.S.R.T.C. LAYOUT
NELAMANGALA 562 123.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K.S.VISHWANATHA, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE
NELAMANGALA 562 123.
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CR.NO.400/2012 OF NELAMANGALA P.S.,
BANGALORE DIST., AND S.C.NO.22/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE P.O., F.T.C.-V, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS

THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER
This

is

the

petition

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

by

the

respondent police in Crime No.400/2012.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per

the averment in the complaint that on 01-09-2012 at
4.00 p.m. complainant went to the Government gomala
land for grazing his cattles.

When he was there he

found one unknown male dead body aged 25-30 years

near the bushes, he went near the dead body, observed
the injuries on the head, neck and scratch on the body
and assumed that on 31-08-2012 evening somebody
might have brought him to the said land and committed
the murder. It is alleged that the dead person is of well
built with beard face wearing blue jeans pant and a
tattoo mark as Amma, G.Sindhu on his right hand and

he noticed two stones beside to the dead body. On the

basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, case
has been registered firstly against the unknown persons
and during the course of investigation, the Investigating
Officer has arrested the present petitioner and involved
the petitioner as well as the other accused persons for
the alleged offences.

3.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner accused No.3 and also

learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

for

the

respondent State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the

course of his argument submitted that there are
eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and FIR was also
registered against the unknown persons and the case of
the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence.
Counsel made the submission that so far as the present
petitioner is concerned, no materials placed by the

prosecution to show his involvement in the commission

of

the

alleged

offence.

Counsel also made

the

submission that perusing the statement of witnesses

recorded

by

the

Investigating

Officer

during

investigation they have stated at the end of their

statement that they came to know about the said
murder.

Hence, he made the submission that they

cannot be the eyewitnesses to the incident. Hence, he

submitted that this Court also considered the merits of
the case and granted bail to accused No.4. Hence, he
submitted that by imposing any of the reasonable
conditions, accused No.3 may be admitted to bail.

5.

As against this, the learned High Court

Government Pleader during the course of his argument

submitted that there are eyewitnesses to the alleged
incident

and

Investigating

Officer

recorded

the

statement of the eyewitnesses who have clearly stated

about the involvement of the present petitioner in the
commission of the alleged offence.

He also made the

submission that there is a recovery of the blood stained

pant and auto rickshaw jointly from accused Nos.1 to 4.
He made the submission that prosecution placed the
prima-facie material to show the involvement of the
present petitioner in the commission of the alleged
offence.

Hence, he submitted that the offence alleged

under Section 302 is a serious offence and hence,

petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

6. I have perused the averments made in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint, order passed by the lower
Court on the bail application and also perused the
inquest mahazar proceedings and

other

materials

placed on record. As it is rightly submitted that firstly

the complaint was against unknown persons and
accordingly FIR was registered against the unknown
persons. It is the case of the prosecution that alleged
incident took place on 31-08-2012, the inquest mahazar
proceedings was conducted on 01-09-2012 and looking
to the inquest mahazar proceedings also there is no

mention about the name of the assailants and in

Column No.11 of the inquest mahazar proceedings, it is
mentioned that after tracing the accused persons then
the police will ascertain the cause of death. So this also
goes to show that even on the date of conducting the
inquest mahazar proceedings on the side of the
prosecution, no witnesses were available to show that
they have actually seen the incident. I have perused the
statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating
Officer

during

investigation

namely,

Manjunath

S/o.Ramanna, Chethan Kumar S/o.Balaraju, Prasad

S/o.Dasegowda, Mahadesh Kumar S/o.Paramashivaiah.
Looking to all these statements, at the end of their
statement they have mentioned that they came to know
about the murder.

So these witnesses cannot be the

eyewitnesses to the alleged incident.

The learned

Government Pleader referred to the statement of one

Roshan S/o.Karim Shariff submitted that he is the
eyewitnesses who has personally seen the incident and I
have

perused

the

statement

recorded

by

the

Investigating Officer of this witness and his statement

was recorded 4 days after the alleged incident. So there
is a delay of 4 days in recording the statement of the
present witnesses and ultimately the prosecution has to
explain about the delay in recording statements of the
alleged eyewitnesses during the course of the trial. For
the purpose of considering the bail petition, looking to
the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the
prosecution has not placed the satisfactory material to
show the involvement of the present petitioner in the
commission of the alleged offence. It is no doubt true
under the voluntary statement said to have been
recorded by the Investigating Officer there is a joint
recovery from accused Nos.1 to 4 i.e., blood stain pant,
stones, autos etc.

But only on the basis of the said

recovery, it cannot be concluded that there is a primafacie material to show the involvement of the present
petitioner. I have also perused the order passed by this
Court in Crl.P.No.7483/2013 dated 05-02-2014.

The

Court has considered the merit of the case while

considering the bail application of accused No.4. In the

bail petition, it is contended by the petitioner that he is
innocent and not involved in the commission of the
alleged offence and he is ready to abide by any of the
reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court.
Therefore, looking to all these materials on record, I am
of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the
discretion in favour of the present petitioner and to
enlarge him on bail.

7. Accordingly, petition is allowed.

Petitioner

accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC registered
by the respondent police in

Crime No.400/2012,

subject to the following conditions:

(i)
personal

The petitioner shall execute a

bond

for

sum

of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)

with one solvent surety for the likesum
to the satisfaction of the concerned
Court;

(ii)

The

petitioner

shall

not

directly or indirectly tamper with any of

the prosecution witnesses;
(iii)

The petitioner shall appear

before the concerned Court regularly.

Sd/JUDGE

VMB