THIPPAREDDY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the petition filed by the petitioner - additional accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent - police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Section 304 -A of IPC and under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and subsequently for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120(B), 302, 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and also Section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered by the respondent - police in Crime No. 34/2012, now pending in S.C. No. 13/12 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Kolar.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case that one Vasanthakumar, son of the deceased was working as JCB Driver and he had got three brothers and one sister and he is residing with his parents in Janugutte village. The father of the complainant was coolie and having a gun since from the time of his grand father. His father used to take gun for hunting. While working as JCB Driver with one Thippareddy i.e., petitioner herein used to come to his house once in 15 days or a month. On 26 -02 -2013, when he came to his house at about 9.30 p.m. his mother was not in the house and informed that his mother had been to Mulabagilu to her sister's house. Then his sister informed the complainant stating that her father left the house in the morning carrying gun and due to gun something is happened and further told that her father fell down near a temple. He consoled his sister and went there and at some distance to Nalluramma Temple, he has noticed that his father had fallen down and dead. By his left a mobile and gun was fallen down. His father had a practice of consuming alcohol and it appears in an intoxication, went for hunting and it appears due to his negligence there was a misfire, due to that fire his father might have died. He was cordial with all the villagers and complainant had no doubt against anybody and prays for action. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered and police took up the investigation.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that even looking to the complaint filed by the son of the deceased at the first instance it goes to show that the present petitioner is totally unconnected with the alleged offences. He made further submission that even thereafter also when the investigation was conducted, it was completed and charge sheet has been filed only against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and even in the charge sheet there was no whisper by any of the witnesses about the involvement of the present petitioner. Learned counsel made the submission that it was only when the Sessions Case was put for a trial and when the complainant -Vasanthakumar and his sister have been examined before the trial, during the course of examination the complainant and his sister have stated altogether a new story and on the basis of that, the police have sought the permission to further investigate into the matter and after investigation now they have filed the charge sheet instigating the present petitioner also in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, counsel submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent and there is no prima -facie material to show his involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, submitted to allow the petition.