1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7233 OF 2013

BETWEEN: Manjunatha @ Raju, S/o. Krishnappa,

Aged about 32 years, R/a. C/o. Appajigowda house, Near Annammadevi Circle, 2nd Block, Nandini Layout, Bangalore-560 096. .. PETITIONER

(By Sri. Dilraj Rohit Sequeira, Adv.) AND: The State,

By Nandini Layout Police Station, Bangalore-560 096. Represented by the State Public Prosecutor .. RESPONDENT (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in S.C. No.1182/2011 of Nandini Layout P.S., Bangalore

2

City pending on the file of the P.O., F.T.C.-XIII, Bangalore, for the offence P/U/S 302, 392 and 201 of IPC.

This Criminal Petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement of orders, this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the

offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of IPC

registered in respondent-police station crime

No.76/2011.

2. The brief facts averred in the petition are that,

on 16.4.2011 at about 14.30 a.m. when the

complainant being police constantly was on his duty,

happened to see some persons peeping into the sump of

an old building situated near Kanteerava studio. When

the complainant went near and saw he could see a dead

body of a male person covered with papers. Then he

informed the same to the P.S.I. The P.S.I. came to the

3

spot and with the help of the public the dead body was

taken out of the sump and found the dead body of a

male person in a decomposed state. There were injuries

on the backside of the head of the deadbody and the age

of the person dead was approximately 25-30 years . On

observing the same, the complainant could make out

that the person is done to death by some unknown

persons and thrown the body in the sump and covered

the same with papers. After investigation, the

respondent-police filed the charge sheet against the

petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections

302 and 201 of the IPC. Hence, he has approached the

Court seeking his release on bail on the ground that he

is innocent and he has not at all committed any offence

and he has been falsely implicated in the case and that

he is ready to abide by any conditions that would be

imposed.

4

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, the FIR, complaint and the entire charge sheet

material. The complaint is made by Sri C.M.Umesh, the

police constable, which is dated 16.4.2011. At the end

of the said complaint it is stated that by looking to the

deadbody it appears that some unknown miscreants for

some unknown purpose might have committed the

murder of the deceased with a heavy object about 3-4

days back. However, the complainant is not the

eyewitness to the incident. As per the case of the

prosecution, one Sri.M.Venkatesh-C.W.10 is the

eyewitness. His statement was recorded on 21.4.2011.

According to his statement, the alleged incident took

place on 7.4.2011 during night. On that day at 11.10

p.m. he after having his dinner went to Lakshmi

Venkateshwara mini hall situate at Nandini Layout

5

Canteerava studio main road for the purpose of sleeping

wherein he saw one Sri Manjunath, the accused and by

his side one unknown person, both were sleeping in the

passage of the mini hall situate at Nandini Layout old

police station building. Thinking that the said unknown

person may be the friend of Sri Manjunath, he went to

the first floor to sleep there and at about 11.45 p.m. he

peeped through the window of the first floor of the mini

hall. He saw accused Sri Manjunath throwing size

stone on the back portion of the head of that unknown

person and heard the sound ‘Aah’. He became

frightened and stood at the first floor itself and saw that

the said Manjunath after getting confirmed that the

unknown person is dead, took out amount from the

pant pocket of the deceased and dragged the deadbody

to the cellar portion of the said building and threw the

size stone to the nearby bush. Due to fear, on the next

day itself, he informed his owner Sri V.K.Ramanna-

C.W.11 that he is going to his wife’s place and left the

place.

6

5. It is the further case of the prosecution that

according to the statement of C.W.11-Sri V.K.Ramanna

which was also recorded on 21.4.2011, he is the owner

of Lakshmi Venkateshwara mini hall. That on

16.4.2011 at 3.00 p.m. when he was nearby the mini

hall, people gathered there. He also went to the spot

and when enquired he came to know that some days

back some unknown person for some unknown purpose

has committed the murder of the deceased and thrown

the deadbody in the water sump. It is his further

statement that on 17.4.2011 in the morning C.W.10 Sri

M Venkatesh who was working as Watchman in the said

mini hall informed him that he will go to his native

place and went away. When he came back from the

village to duty on 21.4.2011, C.W.11 informed Sri

Venkatesh that on 16.4.2011 a deadbody of an

unknown person was found in the cellar portion of the

sump and enquired as to whether he know anything

about the same. Then C.W.10 informed as to what he

saw on 7.4.2011 night. If the statement of C.W.11

7

V.K.Ramanna is taken to be true, then it goes to show

that C.W.10 Sri M Venkatesh was at the place till

17.4.2011 after the alleged incident on 7.4.2011. But

looking to the statement of C.W.10 Venkatesh it goes to

show that after seeing the incident personally, as he

was frightened he went to his wife’s native place on the

very next day of the incident and that was the reason

for him in not informing about the incident either to

C.W.11 V.K.Ramanna or to the police. Looking to the

statements of C.Ws.10 and 11, it can be seen that there

is inconsistency in the case of the prosecution.

According to the complainant, the incident was noticed

by him on 16.4.2011 itself and in spite of that the

statement of C.W.11 Sri V.K.Ramanna, owner of the

Lakshmi Venkateshwara mini hall was not recorded on

16.4.2011 itself. But it was recorded on 21.4.2011.

Perusing the statement of witnesses i.e., C.Ws.10 and

11 who are the main witnesses according to the

prosecution case, they were recorded after 14 days of

the happening of the alleged incident. There is no

8

proper or plausible explanation by the prosecution with

regard to the said delay in recording the statement of

the alleged eyewitness and owner of Lakshmi

Venkateshwara mini hall.

6. I have also perused the P.M. report. The Doctor

who has conducted P.M. examination over the dead

body of the deceased has opined that the death is due to

crush injury.

7. I have also perused the voluntary statement

said to have been given by the accused. It is true that

in the voluntary statement the accused said to have

admitted that he will show the place where he has

thrown the stone on the head of the deceased, the

sump where he threw the deadbody and also the place

where he has thrown the size stone. The investigation

Officer said to have seized the size stone under the

mahazar in the presence of the punch witnesses. But

the report of the FSL particularly with regard to the size

9

stone, although it is mentioned that on article No.6

which is a size stone blood was detected and it is the

human blood, it is mentioned that blood grouping of

the blood stains on item Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 could not

be determined as the results of the test were

inconclusive. Therefore, as per the story of the

prosecution the only eyewitness is C.W.10 Sri M

Venkatesh and I have already discussed about the

inconsistency in his statement and also in the

statement of C.W.11-Sri V.K.Ramanna and also there is

a delay of about 14 days in recording the statement of

these witnesses and also in filing the complaint. So

looking to all these materials on record, I am of the

opinion that there are no reasonable grounds at this

stage to believe that the petitioner-accused has

committed the offence punishable with death or

imprisonment for life. Therefore, it is a fit case to

exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

10

8. So far as the apprehension of the prosecution

that if released on bail, petitioner may abscond or he

may tamper the prosecution witnesses, reasonable

conditions can be imposed, which will safeguard the

interest of the prosecution. The investigation is already

completed and charge sheet is filed against the

petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections

302, 392 and 201 of IPC.

9. Hence, petition is allowed and the petitioner

is ordered to be released on bail of the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of the IPC

registered in respondent police station Crime

No.76/2011 subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for

Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the

likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned

Court.

(ii) He shall not tamer with any of the prosecution

witnesses directly or indirectly.

11

(iii) He shall attend to the concerned Court

regularly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkp