Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MARCH 2015
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.959/2015
BETWEEN:
1. NANJUNDAPPA,
S/O. YALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2. SMT. RENUKAMMA,
W/O. NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDENTS OF DODDANAHALLI
VILLAGE, HUTHUR HOBLI,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
VIJAYANAGARA,
HAROHALLI THOTAGALU,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR-576109.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A.H. BHAGWAN, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KOLAR RURAL POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY

THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,


HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.336/2014 OF KOLAR RURAL
POLICE STATION, KOLAR DIST., FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S.302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Government Pleader for the respondent
Police. Perused the records.

2.

The petitioners are accused nos.1 and 2 in

Crime No.336/2014 on the file of Kolar Rural Police


Station, Kolar District. Offences alleged against both the
petitioners are punishable under Sections 302, 201 read

with Section 34 of IPC. Deceased Ramesh was the


husband of CW-1 Nagarathna. He was working as driver
under CW-9. One person by name Arun son of these
petitioners was working under CW-9. There was some
complaint against him and therefore CW-9 removed
Arun from the job and entrusted the said work to
deceased Ramesh husband of CW-1. This was not to
the liking of the petitioners. In this regard, the
petitioners picked up a quarrel with Ramesh at about
12.00 p.m. on 12.06.2014 near the house which was
under construction. After picking up the quarrel, the 1st
petitioner is stated to have assaulted Ramesh on his
head with a stone and murdered him. Later on,
Petitioner No.1 and his wife Renukamma dragged the
dead body and dumped the same into the water sump of
the new house which was being constructed by Nijesh @
Chandrappa. This incident of murder, according to the
police, was witnessed by CW-5 Ravi and CW-6
Raghavendra.

3.

The

learned

Government

pleader

has

vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground


that prima facie case is forthcoming in regard to the
involvement of these petitioners in the murder of
Ramesh. The events that took place on the night of 12th
June 2014 leading to the death of the deceased are
forthcoming from the statement of CW-5 Ravi and CW-6
Raghavendra who were the eye witnesses to the incident
in question. It is evident that their statements were
recorded by the police 5 days after the alleged incident.
This delay could be taken into consideration to the
limited extent for considering the bail application. It is a
very moot point at this stage as to why Ravi did not
intimate police or the wife of the deceased at the
earliest? It is also moot point as to why Guruprasad to
whom Ravi intimated about the incident did not disclose
the same to the members of the family of deceased
Ramesh or police.

4.

Even when the post mortem conducted by

the police and the statement of the son of the deceased


would go to show that he had not known exact assailant
or murderer. Taking all these into consideration, bail
application will have to be allowed. Even otherwise, the
petitioners are permanent residents of Village in Kolur
Town, having roots in the community. They have
undertaken to obey any conditions that may be imposed
on them. Entire investigation has been completed,
charge sheet has been filed. Thus, the apprehension of
the learned Government Pleader, who has opposed the
bail application, could be suitably met with by imposing
proper conditions. Hence, the petition is to be allowed.

5.

Thus, the petitioners are entitled to be

released on bail. Hence the following:


ORDER
(i)

Petitioners shall be released on bail on


their executing a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one

surety,

for

the

likesum

to

the

satisfaction of the concerned Court.


(ii)

They shall not tamper or attempt to


tamper any of the prosecution witnesses
and lure them in any manner.

(iii)

They shall not hold out threats to the


prosecution witnesses.

(iv)

They shall not involve in any of the


criminal activities.

(v)

The

1st

petitioner

shall

attend

the

respondent - police station once in a


month on every second Sunday between
9 a.m. & 5 p.m., without fail, from the
date of his release till the examination of
material witnesses by the Concerned
Court whichever is earlier.
(vi)

It is made clear that for any reason,


violation of any of the above conditions,
would enable the prosecution to seek
cancellation of bail.

Sd/JUDGE
snc

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen