1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7233 OF 2013

BETWEEN:
Manjunatha @ Raju,
S/o. Krishnappa,
Aged about 32 years,
R/a. C/o. Appajigowda house,
Near Annammadevi Circle,
2nd Block,
Nandini Layout,
Bangalore-560 096.

.. PETITIONER

(By Sri. Dilraj Rohit Sequeira, Adv.)

AND:
The State,
By Nandini Layout Police Station,
Bangalore-560 096.
Represented by
the State Public Prosecutor

.. RESPONDENT

(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of

the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
S.C. No.1182/2011 of Nandini Layout P.S., Bangalore

City pending on the file of the P.O., F.T.C.-XIII,

Bangalore, for the offence P/U/S 302, 392 and 201 of
IPC.
This Criminal Petition having been heard and
reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement of
orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the
offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of IPC
registered

in

respondent-police

station

crime

No.76/2011.

2. The brief facts averred in the petition are that,

on

16.4.2011

at

about

14.30

a.m.

when

the

complainant being police constantly was on his duty,

happened to see some persons peeping into the sump of
an old building situated near Kanteerava studio. When
the complainant went near and saw he could see a dead
body of a male person covered with papers.

Then he

informed the same to the P.S.I. The P.S.I. came to the

spot and with the help of the public the dead body was
taken out of the sump and found the dead body of a
male person in a decomposed state. There were injuries
on the backside of the head of the deadbody and the age
of the person dead was approximately 25-30 years . On
observing the same, the complainant could make out
that the person is done to death by some unknown
persons and thrown the body in the sump and covered
the

same

with

papers.

After

investigation,

the

respondent-police filed the charge sheet against the

petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections
302 and 201 of the IPC. Hence, he has approached the
Court seeking his release on bail on the ground that he
is innocent and he has not at all committed any offence
and he has been falsely implicated in the case and that
he is ready to abide by any conditions that would be
imposed.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner

and

the

learned

Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, the FIR, complaint and the entire charge sheet
material. The complaint is made by Sri C.M.Umesh, the
police constable, which is dated 16.4.2011. At the end
of the said complaint it is stated that by looking to the
deadbody it appears that some unknown miscreants for
some unknown purpose might have committed the
murder of the deceased with a heavy object about 3-4
days back.

However, the complainant is not the

eyewitness to the incident.

prosecution,

one

As per the case of the

Sri.M.Venkatesh-C.W.10

is

the

eyewitness. His statement was recorded on 21.4.2011.

According to his statement, the alleged incident took
place on 7.4.2011 during night. On that day at 11.10
p.m. he after having his dinner went to Lakshmi
Venkateshwara mini hall situate at Nandini Layout

Canteerava studio main road for the purpose of sleeping

wherein he saw one Sri Manjunath, the accused and by
his side one unknown person, both were sleeping in the
passage of the mini hall situate at Nandini Layout old
police station building. Thinking that the said unknown
person may be the friend of Sri Manjunath, he went to
the first floor to sleep there and at about 11.45 p.m. he
peeped through the window of the first floor of the mini
hall.

He saw accused Sri Manjunath throwing size

stone on the back portion of the head of that unknown

person

and

heard

the

sound

Aah.

He

became

frightened and stood at the first floor itself and saw that
the said Manjunath after getting confirmed that the
unknown person is dead, took out amount from the
pant pocket of the deceased and dragged the deadbody
to the cellar portion of the said building and threw the
size stone to the nearby bush. Due to fear, on the next
day itself, he informed his owner Sri V.K.RamannaC.W.11 that he is going to his wifes place and left the
place.

5. It is the further case of the prosecution that

according to the statement of C.W.11-Sri V.K.Ramanna
which was also recorded on 21.4.2011, he is the owner
of

Lakshmi

Venkateshwara

mini

hall.

That

on

16.4.2011 at 3.00 p.m. when he was nearby the mini

hall, people gathered there.

He also went to the spot

and when enquired he came to know that some days

back some unknown person for some unknown purpose
has committed the murder of the deceased and thrown
the deadbody in the water sump.

It is his further

statement that on 17.4.2011 in the morning C.W.10 Sri

M Venkatesh who was working as Watchman in the said
mini hall informed him that he will go to his native
place and went away.

When he came back from the

village to duty on 21.4.2011, C.W.11 informed Sri

Venkatesh that on 16.4.2011

deadbody of

an

unknown person was found in the cellar portion of the

sump and enquired as to whether he know anything
about the same. Then C.W.10 informed as to what he
saw on 7.4.2011 night.

If the statement of C.W.11

V.K.Ramanna is taken to be true, then it goes to show

that C.W.10 Sri M Venkatesh was at the place till
17.4.2011 after the alleged incident on 7.4.2011. But
looking to the statement of C.W.10 Venkatesh it goes to
show that after seeing the incident personally, as he
was frightened he went to his wifes native place on the
very next day of the incident and that was the reason
for him in not informing about the incident either to
C.W.11 V.K.Ramanna or to the police. Looking to the
statements of C.Ws.10 and 11, it can be seen that there
is

inconsistency

in

the

case

of

the

prosecution.

According to the complainant, the incident was noticed

by him on 16.4.2011 itself and in spite of that the
statement of C.W.11 Sri V.K.Ramanna, owner of the
Lakshmi Venkateshwara mini hall was not recorded on
16.4.2011 itself.

But it was recorded on 21.4.2011.

Perusing the statement of witnesses i.e., C.Ws.10 and

11 who are the main witnesses according to the
prosecution case, they were recorded after 14 days of
the happening of the alleged incident.

There is no

proper or plausible explanation by the prosecution with

regard to the said delay in recording the statement of
the

alleged

eyewitness

and

owner

of

Lakshmi

Venkateshwara mini hall.

6. I have also perused the P.M. report. The Doctor

who has conducted P.M. examination over the dead
body of the deceased has opined that the death is due to
crush injury.

7. I have also perused the voluntary statement

said to have been given by the accused. It is true that
in the voluntary statement the accused said to have
admitted that he will show the place where he has
thrown the stone on the head of the deceased,

the

sump where he threw the deadbody and also the place

where he has thrown the size stone. The investigation
Officer said to have seized the size stone under the
mahazar in the presence of the punch witnesses. But
the report of the FSL particularly with regard to the size

stone, although it is mentioned that on article No.6

which is a size stone blood was detected and it is the
human blood,

it is mentioned that blood grouping of

the blood stains on item Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 could not

be

determined

inconclusive.

as

the

results

of

the

test

were

Therefore, as per the story of the

prosecution the only eyewitness is C.W.10 Sri M

Venkatesh and I have already discussed about the
inconsistency

in

his

statement

and

also

in

the

statement of C.W.11-Sri V.K.Ramanna and also there is

a delay of about 14 days in recording the statement of
these witnesses and also in filing the complaint. So
looking to all these materials on record, I am of the
opinion that there are no reasonable grounds at this
stage

to

committed

believe
the

that

offence

imprisonment for life.

the

petitioner-accused

punishable

with

death

has
or

Therefore, it is a fit case to

exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

10

8. So far as the apprehension of the prosecution

that if released on bail, petitioner may abscond or he
may tamper the prosecution witnesses, reasonable
conditions can be imposed, which will safeguard the
interest of the prosecution. The investigation is already
completed

and

charge

sheet is filed

against the

petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections

302, 392 and 201 of IPC.

9. Hence, petition is allowed and the petitioner

is ordered to be released on bail of the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of the IPC
registered

in

respondent

police

station

Crime

No.76/2011 subject to the following conditions:

(i)

Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for

Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned
Court.

(ii)

He shall not tamer with any of the prosecution

witnesses directly or indirectly.

11

(iii)

He

shall

attend

to

the

concerned

regularly.

Sd/JUDGE
bkp

Court