Karnataka High Court
Jagadeshwaran V vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 July, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 6th day of July 2017
Before
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
Criminal Petition No.100376/2017,
Crl.P. No.4283/2017 & Crl.P. No.4284/2017
IN CRL. P. NO.100376/2017
BETWEEN
JAGADESHWARAN V
S/O VISHWANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
DRIVER,
R/AT GUDIYATHAN VILLAGE
VELLURU TALUK AND DISTRICT
TAMILNADU,
PIN.632602. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRADEEP C. S., ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
GUTTALA P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT
GOVT. PLEADER
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO PASS AN ORDER OF BAIL ENLARGING
THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO. 178 OF 2016 OF
GUTTALA POLICE PENDING TRIAL ON THE FILE OF THE CJM
(JUNIOR) DIVISION AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
AT HAVERI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
302, 450, 109, 114, 118, 119 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
--------
IN CRL.P NO 4283/2017
BETWEEN
MANJULA K.E,
W/O BABUREDDY,
AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT NEGALURU VILLAGE,
HAVERI TALUK AND DIST
PIN-580037. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRADEEP C.S., FOR SRI VEERANNA G TIGADI,
ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY GUTTALU POLICE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.178/2016 (S.C.NO.35/2017) OF GUTTALA P.S., HAVERI
3
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302,450,109,114,118,119
R/W 34 OF IPC.
---------
In Crl.P No.4284/2017
BETWEEN
GIRIDHARAN
S/O SARAVANAN
AGED MAJOR, R/AT 2ND CROSS,
NELLURAPETTE,
GUDIYATTAM TALUK,
VELLURU DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRADEEP C. S., ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY GUTTALA P.S.,
REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP )
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.
NO.178/2016 OF GUTTAL POLICE STATION, HAVERI AND
S.C.NO.35/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 302,450,109,114,118,119 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
Common Order
All the above three petitions are in respect of the same crime number. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the three petitions, they are taken up together to dispose of them by this common order.
2. The above petitions are filed by accused No.1, accused No.2 and accused No.4 respectively under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking their release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 450, 109, 114, 118, 119 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in the respondent-police station crime No.178/2016.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as per the complaint averments, are that the complainant one Smt. Annapoornavva, Wife of Neelareddy Maidur, who is the mother of the deceased, lodged a complaint stating that her husband is not well and is bed-ridden; she has five 5 sons and a daughter; her eldest son Mohan Reddy is doing agriculture, the second son Suresh Reddy is residing separately with his wife, the third son Ravi Reddy is also residing separately with his wife, the fourth son Babu Reddy (the deceased) along with his wife, who is serving as a Nurse in a Government Hospital at Negaluru, are residing in their own house. Her son Babu Reddy, who was serving as a teacher, used to travel to Guttala village from Murol village everyday. The said Babu Reddy is having five children - four daughters and a son. Complainant further stated that in the name of her husband there is a land at Negaluru. For the purpose of livelihood of each of her sons, she gave six acres of land to each of them and so also to the deceased Babu Reddy. But, the said Babu Reddy gave six acres of land to the complainant for her maintenance till her life time. For the past six months, whenever the deceased was going to the school, he used to come to her daily and tell her that his wife was not treating him properly and she was not taking care of him, about his meals and that his children 6 also were listening to the words of their mother and were not giving respect to him. This fact was known to the other sons of the complainant and also the grandchildren. She was taking care of the deceased and also advised the deceased to adjust himself with his wife and children and look after them properly. It is further stated that, three months ago Babu Reddy stated that as he was not feeling comfortable in his house, he would stay in her (complainant's) house and he used to go to school from her house itself. It is also stated in the complaint that about two months ago, Babu Reddy came to the house and told that her daughter Asha, with the help of some persons, got him assaulted and as he was having apprehension, he had taken transfer to Guttala. So, the complainant advised the deceased not to go anywhere else except going to school and coming back from her house itself. On 26.10.2016 at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased Babu Reddy came to the house on the motor cycle and he was talking about the household affairs and at about 10.00 p.m., she asked him as to where he is 7 going at that time, she told him to have meals. But the deceased went to Murol village on the motor cycle. On 27.10.2016, in the morning, when the complainant was still on the bed at about 6.30 a.m., one Satish, who had went along with the vehicle carrying milk, came in a perplexed mood and told that many people had gathered in front of the house of Babu Reddy. So, she, along with other members of the family, went and saw the dead body of Babu Reddy in the bedroom and there were bleeding injuries over the body of the said Babu Reddy. The complainant mentioned in the complaint that some persons, who were having grudge and enmity towards the deceased must have committed the murder by using the machete and requested the police to find the culprits and take action in accordance with law.
4. On the basis of the above complaint, firstly, the case was registered for the alleged offence under Section 302 against unknown persons and, during the course of 8 investigation, the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively.
5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused in respect of all the three petitions. So also, heard the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State in respect of all the three petitions.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused, during the course of the arguments, made the submission that sofar as petitioner/accused No.2 and petitioner/accused No.4 are concerned, absolutely, there are no materials to show the prima facie case of involvement of these two petitioners in committing the alleged offences. However, the learned counsel fairly submitted that sofar as petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned, there is some material collected during the investigation like seizure of machete and blood-stained clothes said to be of accused No.1, at the 9 instance of voluntary statement of accused No.1. Learned counsel made the submission that firstly, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident; the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. So far as the petitioner/accused No.4 is concerned, learned counsel made the submission that he is only a driver of the said vehicle and there is no material to show his involvement in committing the offences. He made the submission that sofar as petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned, she is a woman having school going children and there is nobody to take care of those children, and to show that they are going to school, the learned counsel has produced the documents along with a memo. He submitted that the circumstances said to be collected sofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 4 are concerned, they are fictitious and imaginary. He submitted that as the investigation of the case is already complete and chargesheet has been filed, by imposing reasonable conditions, all the three petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
10
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that sofar as the petitioner accused No.1 is concerned, there is prima facie material about his involvement in committing the alleged offence. He also made the submission that even in respect of petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 4 there is a prima facie material collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation. He refers to the statements of C.W.30 and C.W.32. C.W.32 is the owner of the petrol bunk who has stated about the company of accused No.4 and accused No.1 when they had come to the petrol bunk in a vehicle to have the petrol filled to their vehicle. C.W.30 is the owner of the vehicle, who stated in his statement that he had given the vehicle to these two persons. Hence, learned Government Pleader made the submission that looking to these materials, they prima facie go to show the involvement of even these two petitioners in committing the alleged offences. Learned Government Pleader also made the submission that sofar as 11 petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned, she had already approached this Court and this Court considering the merits of the case, ultimately, rejected her petition vide order dated 24th March 2017 passed in Crl.P. No.1000375/2017. Hence, he made the submission that all the three petitions are liable to be rejected.
8. I have perused the grounds urged in all the three petitions, the FIR, complaint and also the chargesheet material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the petition.
9. It is no doubt true that, at the first instance, the case was registered for the offence under Section 302 against some unknown persons, but during the curse of investigation, the present petitioners were apprehended by the police. Looking to the prosecution material collected during the investigation, there is a voluntary statement of petitioner/accused No.1 and, at his instance, the blood-stained clothes and the machete were seized in the presence of the panch witnesses by the 12 Investigating Officer. Looking to the case of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 4, the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation, the statement of owner of the vehicle and the statement of owner of the petrol bunk, the entries in the check post about passing of the said vehicle on 25th October 2016 and on the next day, prima facie goes to show the movement of the said vehicle through that route. Even the statement of the daughter Sindhu and the other prosecution witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation prima facie go to show that the present petitioners hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased Babu Reddy. Sofar as the petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned, the said petitioner had approached this Court by filing Crl.P. No.100375/2017, which has been rejected by this Court. The learned Government Pleader produced a copy of the order dated 24.03.2017 passed in the above petition. I have gone through the said order. This Court, after taking into consideration all the materials collected by the 13 Investigating Officer during the investigation, came to a conclusion that there was a prima facie material even as against petitioner No.2 also. Looking to all these materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that these are not the fit cases to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. Hence, all the three petitions are hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms