KISHNAN CHANDRAKANTH BELAGAUNKAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No. 8 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 69/2014, but during the course of investigation, after collecting some material, the offence under Section 396 of IPC was also inserted in the case.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the petition are that deceased Prashanth usually would return home by 10.00 p.m. after his business hours. On 22.03.2014, deceased borrowed the vehicle from the complainant and did not return as usual, efforts were made by the complainant to find out the whereabouts of the deceased. On the following day, complainant and few others again went in search of the deceased and found near Jad -Shahapur a motorcycle on the road side and further a dead body nearby ditch. Complainant further expressed that it was a case of vehicular accident the deceased was the victim of a hit and run. After investigation, Investigating Officer collected the materials and also after recording the confessional statement of accused No. 1, then the offence under Section 396 of IPC was inserted in the case. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered and the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 8 in the case.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that firstly the case of the prosecution that it was a case of motor vehicle accident in a hit and run case. Learned counsel further submitted that IO recorded the statement of the father of the deceased, who is CW -17 in the case and as per the statement of the said witness, it is clear that deceased was not at all carrying any gold ornaments or cash in the bag on the date of the alleged incident. He has submitted that even according to the complaint averments, there is no claim made by the prosecution that the gold ornaments or the cash has been robbed in the said incident. It is submitted that even some of the gold and silver articles were seized by the IO from the body of the deceased i.e., one gold ring, silver ring and wrist watch. It is also submitted that because some of the gold ornaments were subsequently recovered and as per the voluntary statement said to have been given by the petitioner -accused No. 8, his mobile phone has been seized and only on that basis, now the prosecution come up with the case that petitioner also involved in the offence committed under Section 396 of IPC. He has further submitted that accused No. 9 is already granted bail by the order of this Court, the trial in the case is not yet commenced and since from the date of arrest, petitioner is in jail. Hence, submitted that as investigation is already completed and the charge sheet has been filed, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be considered for bail.