JAYARAMA D Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. Petition No.8787/2018 has been filed by the original complainant-CW1 in Cr.No.82/2016 and Crl. Petition No.687/2010 has been filed by the State for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 (accused No.1) by order dated 22.10.2018 in Crl.P.No.4931/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302, 392 and 201 r/w Sections 37 of IPC.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/complainant in Crl.P.No.8787/2018 and learned HCGP for petitioner-State in Crl.P.No.687/2019 and also learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after release of the respondent No.2/accused in Crl.P.No.4931/2018, on 31.10.2018, along with his friends came near the house of the complainant and threatened the witnesses not to give evidence against the accused. If the witnesses are threatened, then the trial is going to be affected and it will also cause agony amongst the witnesses and the complainant and there will be hurdle in smooth trial of the case. He has also submitted that the accused along with his friends have brought the car and threatened the complainant and other witnesses and pressurizing the complainant not to depose against him in the case registered in Cr.No.82/2016. If that is so, the act of the accused threatening the witnesses and tampering the prosecution evidence and under such circumstances, if the bail granted by this Court is not cancelled, it amounts to interference in fair trial by intimidating the prosecution witnesses . In order to substantiate the said contention he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Sattarbhai Mohmed Hussain Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, 2004 CrLJ 2622. On all these grounds he has prayed to allow the petition.