MOHAN KUMAR AND HITHESH KUMAR Vs. HEBBAGODI POLICE, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by petitioners -accused Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered in respondent -police station Crime No. 561/2013.

(2.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent -State.

(3.) THE offence alleged to have taken place during the night on 12.9.2013. It is alleged that at about 8.15 p.m. on that day when the complainant was in house, one Arunachalam informed the complainant over phone that Srinivas was assaulted by four persons and he fell down sustaining bleeding injuries. Immediately, the complainant went to the said place and injured was shifted to the hospital. But the Doctor who examined the injured declared that Srinivas is dead. So complaint was lodged by the complainant against four unknown persons. Accordingly, F.I.R. was registered against four unknown persons and further statement of the complainant was recorded later. In his further statement which was recorded on 18.9.2013 suspicion was raised by the complainant against the petitioners and also two other accused persons namely, Raja and Ambarish. As per the remand application, it is the case of the prosecution that on 16.9.2013 the accused persons were arrested and they have given their voluntary statement in the case, according to which, the Investigating Officer has recovered a long and knives in the presence of panch witnesses and thereafter, the Investigating Officer has continued the investigation and recorded the statement of other witnesses. According to the prosecution, C.Ws. 1, 11 and 12 are said to be the eyewitnesses. The complainant in his further statement and also the mother of the deceased, have stated about the motive that there was a family dispute between the complainant and accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also there was a quarrel in respect of the landed property and putting debris and because of that reason, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were telling that they will see the complainant, deceased and their family members. So, even according to the further statement of the family members of the deceased, the motive is as against accused Nos. 1 and 2 and not against accused Nos. 3 and 4 who are the present petitioners. The witnesses C.Ws. 1, 11 and 12 are not the eyewitnesses in the case. They are the witnesses to the mahazar conducted by the Investigating Officer in respect of the place where the dead body was lying. Therefore, so far as the present two petitioners are concerned, except the voluntary statement of accused Nos. 3 and 4, the prosecution has not placed other materials to show that they have actively participated in the commission of the alleged offence and they have assaulted the deceased with the deadly weapons. In the bail petition they have contended that they are innocent and not at all involved in the commission of the alleged offences and also undertaken that they are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. Looking to the materials on record and also the statement of the relatives of the deceased, so also the further statement of the complainant, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the present petitioners and to enlarge them on bail by imposing stringent conditions.