PURUSHOTHAMMA, S/O MAREAPPA YADURUMANI AND VISHWANATH REDDY, S/O SAHEB GOUDA MALLADA Vs. THE STATE THROUGH, SHAHAPUR POLICE STATION, DIST: YADGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have approached this Court for grant of bail having been arrested and charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B R/w 34 of IPC. The facts reveal that the second petitioner Vishwanath Reddy is the relative of Sadashivreddeppa (the deceased) who was lending money. As Sadashivreddeppa refused hand loan to the second petitioner, he hatched a plan conspired with the first petitioner and hired accused No. 1 Prakash to commit the murder of Sadashivreddeppa. On 25.2.2012 at about 9.50 a.m. when Sadashivreddeppa was near the bus stand at Shahapur the accused No. 1 is said to have committed murder of Sadashivreddeppa by assaulting him with iron rod. A crime came to be registered in Shahapur police station in Crime No. 26/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. During the investigation the petitioners were arrested.

(2.) THE petitioners claim that there is no money transaction with the deceased and no existing motive for the petitioners to cause the death of Sadashivreddeppa. In the circumstances they have sought for grant of bail. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are innocent and there is no prima facie material on record to prove that the second petitioner had asked the loan and that the Sadashivreddeppa had refused the loan to him, The claim that as the police were not able to trace out the real culprits the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case.

(3.) PERUSAL of the statements of CW. 1 and 5 i.e. Shankaragouda and Linganagouda the sons of Sadashivreddeppa reveal prima facie material motive against the second petitioner who had asked for a loan from Sadashivreddeppa who had refused to pay the amount to the second petitioner. Further more there are mobile calls from the mobile of second petitioner to the mobile of Amareshappa the brother of the first accused. The police also have recorded the statements of Amareshappa CW. 1 who speaks about the conspiracy between the accused Nos. 2, 3 and first accused. Anyhow so far the first petitioner is concerned except that he introduced the first accused to the second petitioner, no further overt act has been attributed against him by the prosecution. The circumstances brought on record by the prosecution to prove the involvement of the first petitioner will have to be weighed and considered after the evidence in the case is recorded. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the first petitioner alone is entitled to the bail sought for. There is prima facie material by way of strong circumstances as against the second petitioner. In the result the petition is partly allowed rejecting the request of the second petitioner for bail. The petitioner No. 1 is ordered to be released on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs. 50,000/ - with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of Sessions Court with the further following conditions: i) That the petitioner No. 1 shall attend the police station on every Sunday in between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. until further orders. ii) The petitioner No. 1 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iii) He shall not jump bail. If any of the conditions are violated, the bail granted entails cancellation. Intimate the concerned authority.