Karnataka High Court
Ramanji vs State Of Karnataka on 2 August, 2023
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27073
CRL.P No. 1567 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1567 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
RAMANJI
S/O NARAYANAPPA @ SOMANAHALLI
NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O VATADAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
NAGARAGERE HOBLI
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUKA
DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA 561228.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed (BY SRI. TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA, ADVOCATE)
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
GOWRIBIDANUR RURAL POLICE STATION
DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI V JAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27073
CRL.P No. 1567 of 2023
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.91/2021
(CR.NO.63/2021) OF GOWRIBIDANUR RURAL P.S.,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
363, 302,201 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the State.
2. This is a successive bail petition and this Court earlier rejected the bail petition of this petitioner vide order dated 19.01.2022 in Crl.P.No.34/2022 taken note of the material collected by the IO and in paragraph 6 of the order, this Court considered the charges alleged about the motive that this petitioner was insisting the mother of the victim boy for sexual favour and when she refused, he took the minor boy to his house and committed murder by strangulation. This Court also observed that no doubt, at the first instance missing case was registered and subsequently, the case was registered under Section 302, 201 of IPC and apart from that Section 363 of IPC. -3-
NC: 2023:KHC:27073 CRL.P No. 1567 of 2023
3. This Court held that the prosecution mainly relies upon the statement of CW2 and CW3 who have last seen the victim along with the petitioner wherein CW3 speaks that the petitioner was carrying plastic bag on his two wheeler and the said two wheeler also seized and FSL report is not yet received and same is awaited and body was found almost 15 days of committing the murder and skull was seized and formed an opinion that at this juncture, this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of petitioner even though the case rests on the circumstantial evidence and there is a recovery of wire which was used for strangulation at the instance of this petitioner hence, rejected the earlier bail petition.
4. Now the counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that CW2 and CW3 have been examined before the Court as PW3 and PW12. The counsel brought to notice of this Court that PW3 has completely turned hostile and so also PW12 and PM report discloses that doctor is unable to ascertain the cause of -4- NC: 2023:KHC:27073 CRL.P No. 1567 of 2023 death since only skeleton remains. When there is no positive evidence before the Court with regard to the cause of death, this Court can exercise the discretion. The counsel in the previous occasion submitted that the petitioner is suffering from aliment and hence, this Court directed the HCGP to get the report from the concerned hospital and now, the report is received and the same discloses that he is in need of surgery and the petitioner disinclined to subject for any surgery in the Victoria hospital at Bengaluru and he wants to take treatment in a private hospital and hence, he has to make arrangements for money for surgery and hence, he may be enlarged on bail for a period of six months.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP would submit that PW12 who has seen the victim along with the petitioner though turned hostile, was cross-examined and in the cross-examination, he categorically deposed that the wire was recovered at the instance of this petitioner which was used for committing murder and cause of death is on -5- NC: 2023:KHC:27073 CRL.P No. 1567 of 2023 account of strangulation and when such being the case, this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court in appreciating the evidence available on record before this Court sitting under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
6. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that in view of the direction of this Court, the petitioner was taken to the hospital and also he was referred to Victoria hospital and he was having history of old case of Amputed right leg (above knee amputation) wound over amputed part and was advised medications and he has been explained about the need for X-Ray and need for surgical intervention. But the patient was not willing for further investigation and management and he wants to come on later date for further management. Hence, he was transferred back to Chikkaballapura district prison. On 04.12.2022, 06.12.2022 and 15.12.2022 he was referred to Victoria hospital for complaint of left knee joint pain and was advised medications and review after one month and again he was retransferred to his parent jail on -6- NC: 2023:KHC:27073 CRL.P No. 1567 of 2023 25.12.2022. On 28.01.2023, he was transferred from Chikkaballapura district prison for follow-up and on 11.02.2023 he was referred to Victoria hospital for complaint of pain over left knee, X-Ray was done and was advised medications and again on 25.02.2023, he was retransferred to his parent jail. The report of the Chief Medical Officer of Central Prison hospital that on many occasions for complaint of pain in left leg with right leg amputation for which he was referred to Victoria hospital on many occasions and he refused surgical intervention and was retransferred to his parent jail with medications. The counsel referring the examination report, the communication between the Chikkaballapura jail vehemently contend that the matter has to be considered by the Trial Court since remaining witnesses have to be examined and only 12 witnesses have been examined and there are 29 witnesses.
7. In reply to the arguments, the counsel for the petitioner submits that though there are 29 witnesses, -7- NC: 2023:KHC:27073 CRL.P No. 1567 of 2023 important witnesses are CW2 and CW3 and they have been examined apart from that 14 witnesses have been examined and not 12 witnesses and the petitioner is in need of surgery and hence, prayed this Court to release him on bail for a period of six months.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the report discloses that he had underwent for amputation earlier and repeatedly he was taken to the Victoria hospital and when surgery was advised, he only took the time and not subjected for surgery and hence, Court has to take note of conduct of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to take surgery in the private hospital and he has to mobilize the fund and hence, he may be enlarged on bail for a period of six moths. No doubt, the report discloses that earlier also the petitioner was suggested for medication as well as surgery but there is no details with regard to that how many days his presence is required for surgery in the private hospital. -8-
NC: 2023:KHC:27073 CRL.P No. 1567 of 2023 When no material is placed before the Court but when the petitioner is in need of surgery, he can be accommodated for a period of one month for the same and not six months as sought by the counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner can be released on bail for a period of one month for the surgery with a condition to execute a bond and to furnish two sureties with an undertaking that he would return to the jail within a period of one month. Thus for the limited purpose, the bail petition is allowed on the choice of the petitioner for particular period.
9. The other contention that he may be enlarged on bail since he is in custody from 2½ years and the same cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail when heinous offence of committing murder is charged against him and in the earlier petition also, this Court taken note of the material collected against him and considered the petition on merits. The counsel for the petitioner brought to notice of this Court to the PM report and no doubt, in the PM report, the doctor has opined that cause of death -9- NC: 2023:KHC:27073 CRL.P No. 1567 of 2023 cannot be ascertained since only skeleton remains. Admittedly the body was recovered after 10 days of the murder and only skeleton was found. The very contention of the counsel for the petitioner that there is no material against this petitioner cannot be decided by this Court sitting under Section 439 of Cr.P.C and Trial Court has to appreciate the same. Apart from that though the counsel for the petitioner relies upon the evidence of PW12 who has turned hostile but in the cross-examination, he categorically deposed before the Trial Court that wire was recovered at the instance of this petitioner and the cause of death also due to strangulation and other recovery witnesses have not been examined before the Trial Court. When such being the case, it is not a fit case to consider the matter on merits or otherwise it amounts to usurping the jurisdiction of the Trial Court.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27073 CRL.P No. 1567 of 2023 ORDER The bail petition is allowed for the limited period of one month as the choice of the petitioner to take treatment by the petitioner in a private hospital as he sought. The petitioner is directed to return to the jail within a period of one month by taking treatment for his aliment.
The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses during the bail period.
The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission during the bail period of one month.
Sd/-
JUDGE SN