1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3765 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SRI. SAMEER
S/O LATE KOUSER
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.39, 9TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN, VALMUKINAGAR,
MYSORE ROAD,
TOLGATE, CHAMARAJPET
BANGALORE-82.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOHD. IBRAHIM, ADVOCATE.,)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE SHO
OF KEMPEGOWDANAGAR POLICE STATION
BANGALORE CITY
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR)
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.63/12 OF KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR
P.S., BANGALORE CITY AND IN S.C.NO.1420/12 ON THE
FILE OF THE P.O., FTC-I, BANGALORE FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 302 AND 201 R/W 34 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.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his
release on bail in Crime No.63/2012 registered in
respondent police station for the offences punishable
under Section 302 and 201 R/W 34 of IPC.
2.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also

heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for
the respondent-State.
3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

during his submission submitted that at the first

instance in the complaint the name of the present
petitioner has not figured and so also

FIR was

registered against unknown persons. He also made the

submission that statement of one of the material
witness CW-6 Joseph has been recorded by the

Investigating Officer on 26.06.2012 i.e two days after

the alleged incident. He also made the submission that
even then in statement of CW-6

the name of the

present petitioner is not at all mentioned. He also made

the submission that in the further statement of the said
witness i.e CW-6 has been recorded on 28.06.2012. It
is mentioned in his statement that there was CC TV
camera in the said bar and restaurant and the present
petitioner and accused

No.2 are seen in the video

which is recorded in the said CC TV. Learned counsel

also submitted that regarding this there was no
statement in the earlier time only after four days delay
of the alleged incident the prosecution came up with the
said version.
material

that

He also made the submission that only

the

prosecution

has

the

voluntary

statement which is said to have been given by the

present petitioner. Hence only on the basis of the
voluntary statement it can not be said that these
accused are all involved. Hence now the Investigation is
completed and charge sheet has been filed and accused

No.2, 4 and 5 have been already granted bail by order of

this court. Hence he submitted to allow the petition.
4.

As

against

this

the

learned

High

Court

Government Pleader during his arguments submitted

that the material collected by the Investigating Officer
goes to show that the present petitioner assaulted the
deceased by throwing stone on his head and hence he
submitted on the ground of parity is not made
applicable to the present petitioner. Hence he is not
entitled for grant of bail.

5. I have perused the averments made in the bail

petition,

FIR,

complaint,

statement

of

witnesses

produced and charge sheet material produced by the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner along with
the petition. Looking to the complaint as well as the FIR
at the first instance FIR was registered against the
unknown persons and in the complaint it is stated that
some unknown persons for some unknown reasons
might had committed the murder of the deceased after

putting a size stone and Cement bricks and for the

purpose of destroying evidence they thrown the stone
and bricks to some long distance of dead body. I have
also perused the statement of CW-6 Joseph recorded on
26.06.2012 two days after the alleged incident. Thus at
that time the CW-6 has not mentioned the involvement
of the present petitioner in alleged offence.

Material

goes to show that on 28.06.2012 i.e after the laps of

four days the further statement of CW-6 was recorded
by the Investigating Officer where in it is stated that the
present petitioner was also involved and as the picture
of the present petitioner can be seen in C.C.Tv which
was fixed in the Harni Bar and restaurant which shows
his presence. This was not stated by the said witness at
the time when the statement was taken in the earlier
occasion i.e on 26.06.2012.

It is no doubt true the

Investigating Officer recorded voluntary statement of the

present petitioner/accused No.1. In the absence of other
material only on the basis of the voluntary statement at
this stage it can not be inferred that prosecution placed

the material to show the involvement of the preset

petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence.
Accused No.2, 4 and 5 already approached this court
seeking release them on bail.

This court after

considering the entire merits in the case the accused

persons have been granted with bail. Therefore on the
parity basis the present petitioner is also entitled to
grant with bail. Investigation is completed and charge
sheet has been filed and the prosecution case rests on
the circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness
to the alleged offence and the involvement of the present
petitioner can be established before the trial after
recording the evidence. Hence petition is allowed. The
petitioner/accused No.1 is

ordered to be released on

bail in Crime No. 63/2012 registered in respondent

police station for the offences punishable under Section
302 AND 201 R/W 34 of IPC., subject to the following
conditions:1.

Petitioner to execute a personal

bond for Rs.,1,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty

Thousand Only)
lakh)

one

and to furnish one

solvent

likesum to the

surety

for

the

satisfaction of the

concerned Court.
2. Petitioner shall not tamper the
prosecution

witnesses

directly

or

indirectly

3. Petitioner shall appear before the

concerned Court regularly.

Sd/JUDGE
RA