Karnataka High Court
Tulasareddi @ Mudukappa S/O Kristappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka By Gadag on 26 July, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 10622/2012
BETWEEN:
Tulasareddi @ Mudukappa
S/o. Kristappa Gadaraddi
Age. 38 years,
Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Kurakoti, Tq. Gadag.
...Petitioner
(By Sri K.L. Patil, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
By Gadag Rural P.S.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka.
...Respondent
(By Sri V.M. Banakar, Additional State Public Prosecutor)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to allow the
criminal petition, by enlarging the petitioner on regular
bail in connection with Gadag Rural P.S. Crime No.
277/2011 (C.C. No. 180/2012 on the file of the JMFC II
Court, Gadag) for the offences punishable under Sections
2
143, 147, 120B, 364, 302, 201 and 506 read with Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 on the basis of a complaint to the effect that land bearing R.S. No. 787 measuring about 28 acres 3 guntas of Kurtakoti village, standing in the name of the mother of accused No.1, was proposed to be sold by accused No.1. His sister had resisted the proposed sale. Incidentally, the brother of accused No.1 had also filed a civil suit in O.S. No.152/2011 and has obtained an order of injunction restraining the sale of the land. It is on account of this dispute that there was rancour between accused No.1 and his brother. It is the case of the prosecution that in order to remove any such impediment for the sale of land, accused No.1 had engineered a plan to murder the brother 3 of the deceased. Therefore, since the accused No.1 was aware of his brother's relationship with another woman, he had induced her to call his brother on his mobile phone and he had been invited to meet her at Hulkoti bus-stand and she was waiting there in a car. The brother of accused No.1 had joined her and while they were moving towards Gadag, when they were near the Engineering College, Hulkoti, accused Nos. 2 and 3 are said to have stopped the car, and had got in. Thereafter, they had picked up a quarrel with the deceased and had started assaulting him. Accused No.2 is said to have strangulated the deceased with a towel, while accused No.3 held down the deceased, and the C.W.11, who was driving the vehicle was warned that if he ever revealed the incident he would also be put to death. Thereafter, they proceeded towards a canal near Chikkanaragund and after covering the body of the deceased with a blanket and tying it with ropes had attached cement slabs to the body and immersed him in the canal and again threatened C.W.11. They had also destroyed the sim card of the mobile phone of the woman, 4 and it is later, on the basis of the complaint that investigation was taken up and on the revelation by C.W.11, who was an eye-witness to the entire episode. The accused, who had already been taken into custody on the basis of the complaint even earlier to the statement of C.W.11, which was made two days after the complaint. The accused were charge sheeted. Neelavva, Ningappa and Tulsareddi, who are three of the accused had filed an application seeking bail before the Court below, on consideration of the above circumstances the Court had rejected the bail application. It is in that background that the accused No.2, who is the petitioner herein has approached this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the complaint was lodged as on 03.01.2012 and inexplicably the complainant was not the eye-witness but he had named the several accused as being responsible for the murder. Accused No.2 herein is in no way related to the family of the deceased or accused No.1 and it was not 5 possible for the complainant to have imagined that the present petitioner was in any way involved in the incident. But he was, however, named in the complaint. According to the prosecution, the eye-witness was C.W.11. His statement is recorded only two days later, as on 05.01.2012, who had actually named accused No.2 as having strangulated the deceased. It is this circumstance, which is sought to be highlighted in holding that a false case is sought to be foisted against accused No.2 alleging that he was a henchman of accused No.1, even though there is no basis or foundation laid for the complaint in the first place.
4. The learned counsel would submit that, incarcerating the petitioner indefinitely on such nebulous allegations would result in a gross mis-carriage of justice and seeks that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has filed objections and would contend that the 6 complainant no doubt was not an eye-witness, but he was fully aware of the close relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2. The present petitioner herein had acted as his henchman and associate in assisting him not only in the proposed sale transaction, but he had all along accompanied accused No.1 in the recent past and this strong suspicion of their involvement in the murder, had prompted the complaint about the accused. The statement of the eye-witness has clinched the accusation, since the suspicion of the complainant has been proved true, and therefore, in the light of these circumstances and since C.W.11 cannot be said to carry any grudge or other interest in bringing the accused to book, it cannot be said that a false case has been foisted. In any event, the accused would have to stand trial and to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this point of time may result in hampering the trial and may prove an impediment to bring the other accused to book. 7 Accordingly, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would oppose the grant of bail.
6. Having regard to the above circumstances and the explanation offered, which is plausible, there is no warrant for interference by this Court. The reasoning of the trial Court cannot be faulted, and therefore, the petition is rejected.
Sd/ JUDGE hnm/-