KRISHNAPPA BHANDRI Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to grant him bail in connection with Crime No. 27/2014 of Chowk Police Station, which is later registered as Spl.Case. No. 42/2014 on the file of the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 504, 506, 302 r/w 149 of IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the complaint, FIR, further statement of the complainant and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting his bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named either in the complaint lodged by injured witness-CW. 1 or in the FIR. It is only in the further statement of CW. 1-complainant, petitioner's name is disclosed and consequently, he is arrayed as accused No. 5 by the police while filing charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court. He submits that petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and he has not committed any offence. He is a permanent resident of Filterbed Ashraya Colony coming within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and there is no apprehension that if he is granted bail, he would not be available for trial. He also submits that to ensure his presence before the Court he is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. He further submits that petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may by imposed by this Court while granting him bail and prays for allowing the petition by granting bail to the petitioner.

(3.) The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the offences registered against him are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He submits that the complainant in his further statement has specifically alleged that petitioner has tied the legs and hands of the deceased and accused Nos. 1 to 4 have assaulted the deceased and committed murder of the deceased. He submits that if the petitioner is released on bail, he has every chances of tampering with the prosecution witnesses which would defeat the purpose of the trial and therefore, he prays for rejection of the bail petition.