Judgment:
(Prayer: Crl.P Filed U/S.439 Cr.P.C By The Advocate For The Petitioner Praying That This Hon'ble Court May Be Pleased To Enlarge The Petitioner On Bail In Crime No.133/2013 Of Surathkal Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District, For The Offences P/U/S 279,338,304-A Of Ipc And Sec.134(A) And (B) R/W Sec.187 Of M.V. Act And Subsequently Altered To Sec.115, 120-B,302 Of Ipc And Etc.)
1. The petitioner is 1st accused in a criminal case in Crime No.133/13 on the file of Surathkal police station, Mangalore, a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A, 115, 120B and 302, I.P.C. He has been in judicial custody since 5.11.2014 and hence he has filed regular bail application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. after the dismissal of similar bail application before the sessions court at Mangalore.
2. Learned HCGP has vehemently opposed bail on the ground that prima facie case is forthcoming in regard to the involvement of this petitioner in committing the murder of Basavaraj who was proceeding on a motorcycle along with H.Gangadhar, a resident of Surathkal. It is argued that he was involved in a similar case registered in Crime No.98/14 of Panambur police station and had murdered one Gangadhar Pangala, taking the assistance of one Pushparaj, driver of Boleru vehicle. Hence he has requested the court to dismiss the bail application.
3. Learned HCGP has further argued that if the petitioner is let on bail, he is likely to terrorize prosecution witnesses and involve himself in criminal activities and there is a great life threat to Gangadhar, on whose complaint this petitioner was dismissed from Mahalakshmi So-operative Society while working as a pigmy collector in the year 1988.
4. The first informant, Gangadhar has, by taking the services of an advocate, filed an application under Section 482 read with Section 301(2), Cr.P.C. to assist the prosecution. The affidavit of Gangadhar is also appended to the application.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP who has vehemently opposed the bail application.
6. Initially the first information came to be registered in Crime No.133/13 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304A and Sections 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the basis of first information lodged by H.Gangadhar. It is alleged in the first information that when he was proceeding as pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-19-EB 6510 driven by Basavaraju, at 10.00 p.m. on 14.5.2013, an unknown vehicle dashed against their motorcycle in the vicinity of Hosabettu Kordabbu Daivasthana on National Highway 66, as a result of which both of them fell down and Basavaraju died due to the injuries sustained in the road accident. After conducting investigation, Surathkal police filed 'C' report stating that the driver of the offending vehicle could not be traced.
7. Later on a case was registered in Crime No.98/14 on the file of Panambur police station on 14.5.2014 alleging that the two wheeler driven by Gangadhar Pangala was dashed by another vehicle resulting in the death of Gangadhar Pangala. During the course of investigation, one Pushparaj was arrested and he is stated to have confessed that he was the driver of the offending Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.KA-19- N-7988, and it was a pre-planned murder and not a road accident. During the course of investigation, police came to know about the involvement of this petitioner- Satish Baikampady also in the said murder and therefore, case was registered against him also.
8. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent-Panambur police, he approached this court and obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.P.5759/14 and appeared before the JMFC on 29.10.2014 relating to Crime No.98/14 and executed bail bonds. As per the orders of this court passed in Crl.P.5759/14, petitioner appeared before Panambur police on 3.11.2014 and submitted himself to execute bonds and it appears he was told to appear on 4.11.2014. As such he again appeared on 4.11.2014 before Panambur police station where he was allegedly detained and subsequently handed over to Surathkal police station.
9. The Surathkal police arrested him and took him into custody and during custodial interrogation, he is stated to have confessed about the attempt made by him to commit the murder of Gangadhar. On the basis of his confession, police have chosen to add Sections 302, 115, 120B read with Section 34, I.P.C. He has been in judicial custody after the expiry of police custody on 8.11.2014, and has undertaken to obey any condition that may be imposed upon him.
10. Learned counsel, Mr.P.P.Hegde representing the petitioner has vehemently argued that inordinate delay in invoking Section 302, I.P.C. against this petitioner, more particularly after the filing of 'C' report is a good ground to release him on bail. He has argued that his client would undertake to obey any condition that may be imposed on him and that he has been falsely implicated.
11. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the bail application contending inter alia, amongst others, that if he is let on bail, he is likely to hold out threats to prosecution witnesses and he may even attempt to murder Gangadhar. Hence, he has requested the court to dismiss the bail application.
12. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 5.11.2014 and police custody expired on 8.11.2014. Substantial part of the investigation is already over. Initially 'C' report was filed in this case on 14.4.2014 and he is stated to have confessed about his participation in the murder of Basavaraju. Whether such information is admissible in evidence could be considered at the time of trial. The main apprehension of the first informant and learned HCGP is that if he is let on bail, he is likely to terrorize witnesses and would make all attempts to commit the murder of Gangadhar.
13. The affidavit sworn to by Gangadhar states that he was working as a clerk in Mahalakshmi Co-operative Society in which the petitioner was working as pigmy collector and he was removed on the basis of the complaint given by him relating to his misconduct. Since then he is stated to be having a lot of grudge against him. It is further submitted that he committed the murder of Gangadhar Pangala in the same manner by using vehicle and the assistance of other persons. This apprehension could be met by imposing a condition, directing him not to go to Mangalore Taluk for a limited period and to abide by the other conditions. Thus the apprehension of the learned HCGP could be suitably met.
14. In the result, the petition filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C. is allowed and bail is granted to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:-
a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned court;
b) He shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner;
c) He shall not involve himself in any criminal activity and shall co-operate with the investigating officer in conducting the case;
d) He shall not go to Mangalore city or Mangalore Taluk except to attend the court relating to Crime No.133/13 on the file of Surathkal police station and Crime No.98/14 on the file of Panambur police station for a period of two years from the date of his release from the prison;
e) He shall attend the court on all the dates of hearing relating to Crime Nos.133/13 and 98/14;
f) It is made clear that if the petitioner violates any on of the conditions mentioned above, prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail from the concerned sessions court.