Judgment:
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.100/2013 of Vidyaranyapuram P.S., Mysore, for the offences P/U/S 392, 397, 398, 302 and 450 read with Section 34 of IPC.)
1. This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.100/2013. However, subsequently, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for the alleged offences under Sections 392, 397, 398, 302, 450 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Even looking to the circumstances said to have been collected by the prosecution during investigation, they are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case as against the petitioner about his involvement in the alleged offence of murder and other offences. At the first instance, in the complaint as well as in the inquest mahazar proceedings, there are no allegations that it is a murder for gain. He has submitted that on the third day i.e., on 10.8.2012 when petitioner was sitting in front of Anjaneya temple, on suspicion, he has been arrested by the police and taken to custody. The only material against the petitioner is that one ear stud of 'C' type has been seized from his T- shirt pocket. Learned counsel has also submitted that there are no blood stains on the clothes seized from the dhobi as per the voluntary statement of the accused persons and also there is no material to show that the blood of the deceased was found on the clothes seized at the instance of the petitioner. Since two years petitioner is in custody. Even charge is not framed in the case and the trial may take a long time. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) AIR 2014 SC 1722, (ii) AIR 2011 SC 341, (iii) 1998 SCC 607, (iv) 1994 SCC Cri 1783.
4. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that C.Ws.6 and 7 i.e., the mother and brother of the deceased have identified the gold ornaments and also the petitioner and accused No.1 in the police station. The recovery of gold ornaments so also clothes from Dhobi at the instance of the petitioner prima facie shows the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record along with the petition.
6. Father of deceased Ashwini is the complainant in this case. He has stated in the complaint that on the date of the incident his daughter Ashwini was in the house and he had been out to attend Sathyanarayana Pooja function and his wife also went to Chitradurga to attend the engagement ceremony of her niece and on 7.8.2012 the complainant was coming back to Mysore along with his wife. When they were near Shira at about 6.30 p.m. they received a phone call from Vijaykumar, their son, informing them that Ashwini is lying on the bed and there is bleeding from her nose. He has also informed that he has put water and even then she did not gain consciousness. Then he told to get the ambulance and thereafter, at about 10.30 p.m. on the same day they came back to house and went inside the room where they used to sleep and saw that some unknown persons with the sharp edged weapon had cut the neck of Ashwini and committed her murder. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered initially for the offence under Section 302 of IPC against unknown persons. During the inquest proceedings also it is mentioned that unknown persons for unknown reasons have committed the murder of Ashwini. The materials shows that subsequently i.e., on 10.8.2012 the petitioner and accused No.1 were arrested by the police when he was sitting before Anjaneya Temple and from the petitioner one earstud of 'C' type has been seized from his T-shirt pocket. It is also the case of the prosecution that at the instance of both the accused persons clothes were seized from dhobi. Regarding the seizure of gold ornaments though it is a joint recovery, the materials show that it is at the instance of accused No.1. Not only that at the initial stage up to the inquest mahazar proceedings, it is not the case of the prosecution that the murder is for gain. In the inquest mahazar proceedings at paragraph No.7 it is mentioned that when they saw the deceased the gold ornaments i.e., nose stud, ear stud, mangalya, havala, gundu and other gold ornaments which were on her body were taken and handed over to Smt.Nagarajeshwari, the mother of the deceased and they took the acknowledgement. This also prima facie shows that gold ornaments with the deceased were as it is when the inquest mahazar proceedings were conducted. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. It is no doubt true that from the petitioner one earstud of 'C' model has been seized from his T-shirt pocket as per the material collected by the investigating officer during investigation.
7. I have also perused the decisions and the principles enunciated in the said decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2. Looking to the materials placed on record, so also, the legal position pertaining to the facts of the present case and as the investigation is already completed and charge sheet has been filed, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be admitted to bail. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner-accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 392, 397, 398, 302, 450 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.100/2013, subject to following conditions:-
(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.
(ii) He shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
(iii) He shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.