Karnataka High Court
Vageesha Alias Rayadurga Vageesha vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100712/2022
BETWEEN:
1 . VAGEESHA
ALIAS RAYADURGADA VAGEESHA
S/O RAYADURGADA BASAPPA
AGE 35 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
R/O DODDAGARADIKERI , 9TH WARD
VALMIKI NAGAR, HARAPANAHALLI
DIST VIJAYANAGAR-583131
2 . RAYADURGAD YALLAPPA
S/O HANUMANTAPPA
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER
R/O DODDAGARADIKERI , VALMIKI NAGAR,
HARAPANAHALLI,
DIST VIJAYANAGAR-583131
3 . HALE BEDARA HANUMANTHAPPA
ALIAS HANUMANTHA
S/O MARI KENCHAPPA
AGE 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O DODDAGARADIKERI
TQ HARAPANAHALLI,
DIST VIJAYANAGAR-583131
4 . RAYADURGAD HANUMANTHA
ALIAS HANUMANTH
S/O GONEPPA
AGE 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2
R/O DODDAGARADIKETI
TQ HARAPANAHALLI
DIST VIJAYANAGAR-583131
.. PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. C.H.HANUMANTHARAYA AND SRI. SIDDESHWARA, ADVS. FOR
PETITIONER NO.1.
.SRI. K.L. PATIL AND SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADVS FOR PETITIONER
NOS.2 TO 4)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HARAPANAHALLI
POLICE STATION,
NOW REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD
.. RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING
TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND ENLARGE THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH
HARAPANAHALLI P.S. CRIME NO.108/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 302, 143, 147, 148, 120B, 212, 201 R/W
SECTION 149 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, HARAPANAHALLI.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity) for granting bail in Crime No.108/2021 registered by the Harapanahalli Police Station, Ballari, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, 212 and 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, IPC now pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli.
2. Heard Sri. C.H. Hanumantharaya, learned counsel appearing for petitioner No.1, Sri. K.L. Patil, learned counsel appearing for petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, one Smt. Shilpa, wife of deceased Shreedhar, filed complaint alleging that, on 13.07.2021 when she was in Uchchangidurga, her husband informed over telephone that, he has lodged a case against Bharat who is the son of P.T. Parameshwar Naik and H.K. Halesh-accused No.6 and his son and therefore there is fear of life threat. 4 Informing the same, on 14.07.2022, during the entire day, he was in the house. On 15.07.2021 at about 7:15 pm, when the complainant was in the house, she heard that her husband was assaulted near the hotel within the premises of ADB College. Herself and others rushed to the spot and found blood stains on the chair as well as on the ground and mobile phone of her husband was also lying there. Immediately, she enquired with the owner of the hotel-Channaveera Gowda, who informed that on the said day between 6:45 pm to 7:30 pm, accused No.1-Vageesha along with 4 others came with the deadly weapons like iron rod and cement brick stones and assaulted the husband while he was drinking tea. Thereafter, she rushed to the Government Hospital at Harapanahalli. She saw the dead body of her husband. Thereafter she gave complaint to the police. After registering the case, during investigation, the police arrested these petitioners and remanded them to judicial custody. Their bail petition came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, they are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel Sri. C.H. Hanmantharaya appearing for petitioner No.1/accused No.1 strenuously contended that the 5 petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is innocent of the alleged offence. The complainant is not an eyewitness to the incident. In fact, CW.19-Channaveera Gowd, who is the alleged eyewitness to the incident, has stated, while cleaning the hotel, the deceased came for drinking tea, at that time, the incident occurred and he has not disclosed the names of other accused persons except the naming accused No.1 and the said CW-19 went and informed about the incident to the Principal of the College, who in turn instructed him to lodge a complaint. But he has not lodged any complaint. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint by the wife of the deceased. The complaint has been manipulated by the brother of the deceased, who is stated to be a practicing advocate. The deceased was said to be an RTI activist and there was internal dispute between the accused and the deceased. If at all, the hotel was closed and he was cleaning, there must be some workers in the hotel also who have witnesses the incident. But no such eyewitness are shown in the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the presence of CW-19 is also doubtful. He further contended that the complainant came to know about the information at 7:30 pm. She went to the hospital but did not file 6 complaint immediately. The compliant was said to be prepared at 11:45 pm but the FIR reached to the Magistrate at 4:10 am on the next day and by that time, the preparation of the inquest panchanama was culminated. It creates a doubt in respect of registering the case on the said night. The hospital records reveal, the deceased was brought dead. Though the SHO went to the hospital after receiving MLC report but he has not registered any case immediately against unknown persons. Therefore, the complaint filed is an afterthought. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of 4 witnesses. During the inquest panchanama, none of them stated anything about the assault by the accused persons which reveals only 4 to 5 unknown persons and per column 4 of the inquest panchanama, CW-28 found alive with the deceased that means CW-19 may not be an eyewitness to the incident. The complainant is only a hearsay witness. Accused No.6 was arrested by the police and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to accused No.6. The accused were arrested on 17.07.2021 and joint recovery was made. No motive aspect attributed at the behest of accused No.6. Accused No.6 who is the author of the crime has already been granted bail by the Co- 7 ordinate Bench of this Court on 30.08.2021. The petitioner is in custody for almost 11 months and there are no bad antecedents. He is ready to abide any conditions. Hence, prayed for granting bail.
5. Learned counsel Sri. K.L. Patil appearing for petitioner Nos.2 to 4 also argued on the same line and contended that the names of these petitioners are not mentioned in the FIR or complaint and there is no recovery of any weapon from these petitioners. Therefore, the counsel prayed for granting bail to accused Nos.2 to 4.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and contended that CW-19, who is an eyewitness, has categorically stated in his statement before the police as well as in 164 Cr.P.C. statement before the Magistrate, the Investigating Officer also got conducted test identification parade through Tahasildar. CW-19 identified all he accused who were all came and assaulted the deceased with an intention to commit murder. Subsequently, accused No.6 paid money to the accused for escaping. Accused No.6 had not participated in the 8 commission of crime but these petitioners had participated in the commission of murder of Shreedhar. The previous enmity is, the deceased was an RTI activist and he lodged a complaint against the accused persons. Therefore, they decided to commit murder. Accordingly, they caused the death in the hotel where the deceased was drinking tea. If the petitioners are granted bail, there is every possibility of tampering the witnesses, committing similar offence and absconding from the case are not ruled out. The offence is heinous one. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.
8. The records reveal that petitioner No.1 and 4 others are said to have committed murder of the deceased-Shreedhar, who was stated to be an RTI activist and also stated to be the brother of an practicing advocate. Of course, the complainant-Shilpa, wife of the deceased is not an eyewitness to the incident but is only a hearsay witness who came to know about the incident through CW- 19-Channaveera Gowda, who is stated to be running a hotel in ADB college campus. The statement of CW-19 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 9 where he has stated, on the said day evening the deceased came for drinking tea at 6:40 pm when he was closing the hotel at that time, accused Nos.1 and 4 others-his henchmen came with deadly weapons and assaulted the deceased. They also dumped stone on the head of the deceased and committed murder. Immediately he rushed to the chambers of the Principal of the College and intimated him about the incident where the Principal is stated to have informed CW-19 to send the injured to the hospital by ambulance and to lodge the complaint. When the deceased was taken to the hospital, MLC was sent to the police station. Of course when Head Constable went to the hospital, by the time, the wife of the deceased also reached the hospital and thereafter she came and lodged a complaint in the night hours. Though FIR came to be registered at 11:45 pm but the FIR reached the Court at 4:00 am in the early morning on the next day. Of course, the inquest panchanama was also conducted and concluded prior to reaching of the FIR to the Court. Though the FIR required to be sent immediately to the Magistrate but it has to be observed, the incident took place in the night hours and the complaint was also registered in the mid night and FIR was sent to the Court but it 10 might have reached in the early morning. Therefore, at this stage itself, without going for the cross-examination, the Court cannot presume that the police manipulated the FIR for the purpose of any false implication of the accused persons. FIR itself reveals that accused No.1-Vageesha and his 4 henchmen committed murder. Such being the case, it cannot be said that petitioner No.1-accused No.1 and other accused were not involved in the offence. The statement of CW-19-eyewitness(Channaveera Gowda) under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has categorically stated that accused No.1 and others had committed murder. Test identification parade conducted through the Tahasildar where the eyewitness has identified accused Nos.1 to 5. Subsequent to the arrest of the accused, weapons were recovered by the police. Accused No.6, who is stated to have paid money for accused No.1 and others to escape from the place and the police registered offence under Section 302 of Cr.P.C. against him but only accused Nos.1 to 5 have committed murder of the deceased. There is sufficient material placed on record that the petitioners have committed murder of the deceased. Inquest panchanama, photographs of the scene of occurrence all reveals there is prima facie material on 11 record to show the involvement of the accused Nos.1 to 4 in committing the murder of Shreedhar.
Though learned counsel for accused No.1 has contended that accused No.6-Halesh, who is the author of the crime, the police though arrested him and this Court granted bail to him as offence under Section 302 may not attract against him. The alleged offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and there is eyewitness to the incident. Therefore, if these petitioners are granted bail, there is every possibility of threatening the complainant as well as the eyewitness and commit similar offence as well as absconding from the case is not ruled out. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for bail.
Accordingly, criminal petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv