POOJAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the petition filed by the petitioner -accused No. 1 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 Sections 143, 302, 201 r/w. Sector 149 of IPC and under Sections 3, 25 & 27 of Arms Act 1959, registered by the respondent -police in Crime No. 153/2013. Heard the arguments}of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner -accused No. 1 and also learned High Court/Government Pleader for the respondent -State.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that at the first instance there was a complaint and only four persons were suspected as per the complaint dated 11 -11 -2013. Learned counsel made the submission that name of the present petitioner was not figured in the said complaint, so the first FIR was registered only against four accused persons and not against the present petitioner. Learned counsel made the submission that it is only, subsequently, that too, on the basis of the voluntary statement of the other accused persons, the present petitioner has been arraigned as accused No. 1 in the 1 case. Learned counsel made the submission that even looking to the allegations made in the second complaint that petitioner along with other accused persons and deceased went for hunting and present petitioner fired the riffle on the pig, but it missed and hit the deceased. So learned counsel made the submission that even taking this also for the sake of argument and appreciation, intention cannot be attributable on the present petitioner that he has committed the murder of the deceased. Learned counsel made the submission that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. He made the submission that other accused persons have been granted with bail by the order of this Court and the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, he made the submission that now the Investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.

(3.) I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Perusing the first complaint dated 11 -11 -2013, as it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the name of the present petitioner was not shown in the complaint. But on the other hand, the suspicion is against the other four accused persons whose name has been registered in the FIR as accused Nos. 1 to 4. But subsequently, the name of the present petitioner has been shown and he has been included in the case. It is the contention of the present petitioner in the bail petition that he is not the owner of the said riffle nor he has fired the riffle on the deceased nor committed any offences and he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Looking to the materials on record, the riffle has been seized by the Investigating Officer from the house of one Suresh Kumar -accused No. 5. So it goes to show that the said riffle is not at all seized from the present petitioner -accused No. 1. Looking to the materials collected during investigation they goes to show that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and present petitioner has been arrayed as A -1 by the Investigation) Officer and his name has been shown on the voluntary statement made by the other accused persons. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader that the accused persons have been granted with bail by the order of this Court and also by the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint and as the case rests on the circumstantial evidence, it is also the case of the prosecution that petitioner along with other accused persons together went for hunting. Therefore, on the ground of parity, present petitioner is also entitled to be granted with 'bail. Regarding the apprehension of the prosecution, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner presence can be secured before the Investigating Officer or before the trial Court. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent -police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 302, 201 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3, 25 & 27 of Arms Act 1959, registered by the respondent -police in Crime No. 153/2013, subject to the following conditions: