Karnataka High Court: While deciding a criminal petition filed under Section 439 of CrPC, a Single Judge Bench of Budihal R.B., J. enlarged the petitioner on bail, inter alia, on the ground that the complaint was lodged on the basis of suspicion.
The petitioner prayed for his release on bail for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 301 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner was alleged to be last seen with the deceased. The original allegation was against another person but later the petitioner was implicated as the main accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no prima facie case against the petitioner. The complaint was filed on suspicion, even that was against another person; and the petitioner was later falsely implicated as Accused 1. He prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
The High Court perused all the material available on record as well as the submissions made by the parties and observed that the complaint was lodged on suspicion, the petitioner was subsequently implicated as Accused 1, and there was no averment in the complaint as to the involvement of the petitioner. There were no eyewitnesses to the incident and the prosecution case was dependent on the circumstantial evidence. The Court was of the opinion that it was a fit case for the Court to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to the conditions imposed. [Mohammed Usmal Ulla Shariff v. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 3072, order dated 11.10.2017]
