w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ganesh @ Ganesh Reddy v/s State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru


Company & Directors' Information:- GANESH CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15311PN2011PTC141089

Company & Directors' Information:- D S REDDY & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51102TN1952PTC000600

Company & Directors' Information:- PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U74900KL1948PLC000930

    Criminal Petition No. 7415 of 2019

    Decided On, 14 September 2021

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

    For the Petitioner: Abhijeet S.K. Rai, Advocate. For the Respondent: Rachaiah, HCGP.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.121/2018 of Devanahalli P.S., Bengaluru City for the offence P/U/S 302, 201 and 397 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5-a) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.)1. The petitioner who is accused No.1 has filed the present petition seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with the detention relating to proceedings in Crime No.121/2018 of Devanahalli Police for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 and 397 of Indian Penal Code R/w Section 3(2) (V-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity).2. At the outset, it is noticed that a notice was issued to the dependant of the victim in light of the provision of Section 3(2)(V-a) of the Act and the office note indicates that the notice is served on the dependant of the victim.3. The case that is made out by the prosecution is that, a complaint came to be lodged by one Sri Mallappa, President of Vatadahosalli Grama Panchayath, Gowribidnur Taluk to the effect that he noticed an unknown and unidentified dead body was lying in the drain in Amani Tank at Vatadahosalli, while he was attending duty at Grama Panchayath office on 05.09.2018. On the basis of said complaint, request was made to the police authority to take action. Accordingly, police have registered the case in Crime No.210/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 of IPC. The case that is made out by the charge sheet is that, the accused No.1 had strangulated the deceased with duppatta and aux wire, while it is stated that accused No.2 had assisted accused No.1 in inflicting injuries and strangulating the deceased. It is to be noted that accused No.2 came to be enlarged on bail as per the Order dated 12.07.2019 in Crl.P.No.2581/2019, while the bail petition of accused No.1 came to be rejected. Subsequently, the present criminal petition No.7415/2019 has been filed seeking enlargement of accused No.1 on bail.4. This Court by the order dated 19.06.2020 had observed that the petition would be taken up after completion of evidence of C.Ws.-21, 22 and 23, which witnesses according to the prosecution were vital witnesses on which the case of the prosecution rests. The Court had also noticed in its order dated 15.06.2020 that the complainant was not co-operating with the trial and as per the say of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and that he was not appearing before the Court despite issuance of NBW. Accordingly, taking note of the submission that the complainant was contributing to the protracting of the trial, an observation was made on 19.06.2020 as observed above.5. It is submitted that the evidence of CW 21- Sumanan, a colleague of the deceased and CW 22- Gowthami, again colleague of the deceased has been concluded and these witnesses have turned hostile. It is further submitted that evidence of CW- 23 sister of the deceased has been completed so also the evidence of CW- 10 who is father of the victim. It is to be noticed that the petitioner is in custody since 07.09.2018 and as on date, three years has lapsed from the date of his arrest. As per the say of the prosecution, the evidence of important witnesses upon which the case of the prosecution rests i.e., C.Ws.-21, 22 and 23, has been concluded.6. Taking note that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and that the evidence of the main witnesses are complete, it is to be noted that the present proceedings cannot be construed to be punitive in nature. The commission of offence is a matter to be established during trial. As noticed earlier, the case rests purely on circumstantial evidence and insofar as the case of the prosecution, private witnesses namely C.Ws.- 21, 22 and 23 and C.W-10 father of the deceased have already been examined, rest is the matter to be established during the trial. It would be appropriate taking note of the stage of the trial to enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to conditions to ensure that the petitioner would co-operate in expeditious conclusion of the trial and shall keep himself present on the dates when the witnesses are summoned on behalf of the prosecution.7. No doubt on the earlier occasion, the bail petition of the present accused was rejected as per the order dated 13.07.2019 in Crl.P.No.2581/2019. Subsequent to the said order, as noticed, evidence of main witnesses have been completed and as noticed earlier CW- 1 by keeping himself away has also contributed to protracting of the trial when all along petitioner was in custody and the said aspect could be taken note of as warranting reconsideration of earlier opinion. The present petition has been kept pending till conclusion of evidence of C.Ws.- 21, 22 and 23.8. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the matter or expressing any opinion as regards nature of evidence adduced by the witnesses, though it is contended that C.Ws.- 21 and 22 have turned hostile, it would be appropriate to pass an order without entering into merits of the evidence lead.Accordingly, petition is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Spl.C.C.No.539/2018 (Crime No.121/2018) for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 and 397 r/w Section 3(2)(V-a) of the Act subject to following conditions:(i) Petitioner/accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.(ii) Petitioner/accused No.1 shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.(iii) Petitioner/accused No.1 shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.(iv) In the event of change of address, petitioner/accused No.1 to inform the same to the concerned SHO.(v) Petitioner/accused N

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

o.1 shall not indulge in any criminal activities of like nature.(vi) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by petitioner/accused No.1, shall result in cancellation of bail.(vii) The petitioner/accused No.1 shall mark his attendance once in every month before the concerned SHO.(viii) The petitioner/accused No.1 is also to be present on the dates of hearing whenever the prosecution summons witnesses. In the event, petitioner remains absent for more than one occasion when the matter is posted for evidence of the witnesses so summoned, it is made clear that the prosecution would be entitled to move this Court for cancellation of bail.
O R