Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/8919/2017 of SRI. YOGESH @ NAGESH @ MADESH Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 28 December 2017
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8919/2017 BETWEEN: SRI YOGESH @ NAGESH @ MADESH S/O SHIVANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT RAJENAHALLI VILLAGE BOOKANAKERE HOBLI K.R.PETE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 28[TH]DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8919/2017
BETWEEN:
oRI YOGESH @ NAGESH @ MADESH9/O SHIVANNEGOWDAAGKD ABOUT 35 YBARSR/AT RAJENAHALLI VILLAGEBOOKANAKBRE HOBLIK.R.PETR TALUKMANDYA — 572 301.|
... PETITIONER|
(BY SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADV.)
AND:
THERE STATE OF KARNATAKREP. BY ALUR POLICE|HASSAN DISTRICTREP. BY [TS STATHKH PUBLIC PROSKBCUTHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKABBNGALURU — 560 OO1.
RBSPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO EBENLARGE THE PETITIONEON BAIL IN CRIME NO.69/2017 OF ALUR POLICE STATION,HASSAN AND IN 8.C.NO.89/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE|OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,|
HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 201, 302, 392 AND404 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,THR COURT MADE THR FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accusedNo.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release onbail in Crime No.69/2017 for the offences punishableunder Sections 201, 302, 392, 404 r/w. 34 of IPCregistered by the respondent - Police.
2 |It is stated in the complaint that on.03.03.2017 the deceased had gone for coolie work andcame to home at 5.p.m. and on the same day when thecomplainant came back to home at about 8 p.m., thedeceased was not found in the house. It is further|stated in the complaint that, he made search for thedeceased, but he did not find her. Therefore, he filed amissing complaint on 5.3.2017. On 09.03.2017 theyfound the dead body of the deceased behind the house in coffee estate and he identified the dead body andsuspected that accused No.1 has committed the murderof the deceased. Therefore, the present case came to beregistered on the same day.
3. |Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner|and the learned High Court Government Pleader for therespondent/State.
a |Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits.that the petitioner was arrested on suspicion thoughthere was no involvement of the petitioner in the alleged —offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner wouldfurther submit that accused No.2 has been granted bailbythisCourtby orderdated99 .8.9017in.Crl.P.No.5291/2017. Hence, he sought for enlarging thepresent petitioner on bail.|
5 |Per contra, learned High Court GovernmentPleader for the respondent/State would submit that case is registered on the basis of circumstantialevidence. He further submits that if the petitioner isreleased on bail, he will tamper the confidence of theprosecution witnesses. Hence, he sought for dismissalof the petition.
6. Now the investigation is completed andcharge sheet is also filed. Considering the judicialcustodyoT thepetitionerandthe|factsandcircumstances of the case, I am of the sincere view that.2O prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the|petitioner is released on bail.
[|Accordingly,|thepetition1Sallowed.Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in Crime'No.65/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections302 and 201 of IPC registered by the respondent —police, subject to the following conditions:-
1) The petitioner shall execute a personal bondfor Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
SA
withasuretyowningandpossessing|immovable properties for the likesum.
11) The petitioner shall not terrorize or tamper|the prosecution witnesses in any manner. the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
---$The petitioner shall not leave the Karnataka|border without prior permission of the trialborder without prior permission of the trial Court.
-A$The petitioner shall mark his attendance|before the Investigating Officer on every firstsaturday of each month between 9.00 and10.00 p.m. until further orders by the trialCourt.before the Investigating Officer on every firstsaturday of each month between 9.00 and10.00 p.m. until further orders by the trialCourt.
Sd/-
JUDGE |