B. VINOD KUMAR @ VINOD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by petitioner -accused No. 3 under Section 439 of Cr. P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201 and 302 of IPC registered in respondent -police station Crime No. 241/2013.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case as alleged in the complaint are that on 19.3.2013 at about 8.45 p.m. complainant received credible information from unknown persons stating that some miscreants were planning to commit dacoity. Immediately, complainant along with panchas and staff went to the spot and caught hold of one B Vinodkumar @ Vinod, R Lakshmeesha, Mohan whereas, two other persons i.e., Anju and Ganesh escaped from the spot. The complaint was registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC in Crime No. 215/2013. It is the case of the prosecution that during investigation in Crime No. 215/2013, accused revealed that they are involved in other cases. Thereafter, from the judicial custody they were taken to police custody with the permission of the Court from 26.8.2013 to 4.9.2013 and the voluntary statement of the accused persons were recorded on 31.8.2013, wherein it is revealed that one Lakshmeesh had illicit relationship with one Anjali and since she had become pregnant and was pressurizing Lakshmeesh to marry her, Lakshmeesh along with one Subramanya and Vinodkumar, petitioner herein conspired to commit the murder of Anjali and they committed the murder and buried the dead body. It is alleged by the prosecution that on the basis of the said voluntary statement recoveries have been made from the petitioner along with other accused persons and case has been registered in Crime No. 241/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of IPC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that the basis for apprehending the present petitioner in connection with the Crime No. 241/2013 for the alleged offence of murder and screening the evidence is concerned is the voluntary statement said to have recorded in another Crime No. 215/2013 after lapse of one year from the date of alleged murder. He has submitted that except the voluntary statement of petitioner -accused No. 3 said to have been given before the police regarding the murder of deceased Anjali, there is no prima facie material placed by the prosecution to show his involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. Learned counsel submitted that accused Nos. 2 and 6 have been already granted with bail by the Sessions Court and this Court respectively. Similar allegations are made against accused Nos. 2 and 6 and the petitioner herein. Therefore, on the ground of parity also, the present petitioner is entitled to be granted with bail. He has submitted that petitioner is not at all involved in the commission of the alleged offence and by imposing any reasonable conditions, he may be admitted to bail.