Karnataka High Court
Puttaswamy N @ Auto Puttaswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF JUNE 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4113/2017
BETWEEN:
1. PUTTASWAMY N @ AUTO PUTTASWAMY
S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA,
CAR DRIVER
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.1191
BEML LAYOUT
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, 2ND STAGE
MYSORE - 570 022.
2. D.LAKSHMEGOWDA @ CHANNAKESHAVA
S/O LATE DEVEGOWDA
COOLI WORK
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT HAROHALLI VILLAGE
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA - 571 434. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SARASWATHIPURAM POLICE
MYSORE - 570 009
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE- 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP.)
-2-
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL
IN CR.NO.18/2017 (C.C.NO.818/2017) OF SARASWATHIPURAM
POLICE STATION, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302 AND
201 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. I.A.1/17 filed on behalf of the brother of the victim of the incident seeking permission under Section 301(2) r/w section 482 of Cr.P.C. is disposed of since disposal of the bail petition does not warrant external assistance.
3. Petitioners (A-2 and A-3) along with three others are charge sheeted by the respondent-police in their Cr.No.18/17 in respect of the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w section 34 of IPC.
-3-
4. The allegation of the prosecution is, the deceased Srinath had questioned the legality of the construction put up by the 1st accused. A-2 and A-3 are his aides. A-4 works as Maison under A-1. A-5 is the brother- in-law of A-1. In pursuance of their enmity against the deceased, on the night of 29.12.2016 the 1st accused invited the deceased to his place under construction, made him to consume alcohol, assaulted him to death with a wooden piece. 2nd and 3rd accused inflicted blows on him, kicked him. Through 4th accused they screened the offence by cleaning the blood stains at the spot. They shifted the dead body in the vehicle belonging to the 2nd accused and disposed of the same in the Cauvery river near Srirangapatna.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dead body was found on 30.12.2016. Since it was not identified, it was preserved in the mortuary of the Government Medical College, Mysuru. On 31.12.2016 the brother of the deceased identified the dead body and -4- suspected involvement of 1st accused and one Engineer because of the ensuing enmity between the 1st accused and the deceased. Subsequently, the petitioners were arrested on 5.1.2017 and A-1 was arrested on 28.1.2017. Two months thereafter, on 18.3.2017 the statement of one of the eye witness CW-48 was recorded. On 25.3.2017 statement of eye witnesses CWs 49 to 51 was recorded. Thereafter statement of CW 49 was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C by the JMFC Court wherein he totally retracted from section 161 Cr.P.C. statement.
6. Learned counsel continues to submit, the delay in recording the statement of eye witnesses invokes suspicion about the veracity of the prosecution case. The investigation having been complete, no motive having been attributed against these petitioners for the murder of the deceased, the petitioners may be released on bail and they are ready to abide by any condition imposed upon them. Except the car which was parked at the premises of 2nd accused, no other incriminating material connecting the -5- petitioners to the alleged offence is seized by the Investigating Officer.
7. The learned Government Pleader for the respondent submits that the eye witnesses have consistently stated about the complicity of these petitioners in the alleged offence. The delay in recording the statement of witnesses by itself will not falsify the prosecution case. Since 2nd and 4th accused threatened the eye witnesses, they left the place without giving their statement before the police. Their statements being in natural tone, there is no reason to disbelieve them. A prima facie case is made out by the prosecution bringing home the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The offence since punishable with major punishment, these petitioners are not entitled for bail.
8. Perused the prosecution papers. For the disposal of the present petition what weighs in the mind of the Court is, mens rea to commit the murder of the deceased and overt act resulting in the murder of the deceased is yet to be proved during trial. Investigation -6- since complete, there is no impediment to allow the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioners are enlarged on bail in Crime No.18/2017 of respondent-police, subject to the following conditions:
(i) They shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
The sureties shall produce their
original title deeds pertaining to the
immovable properties and their
identity/Aadhar card for perusal of the Court. They must not have previous history of offering surety to any accused in any other criminal case so far.
(ii) They shall mark their attendance on every Tuesday during office hours before the respondent-Investigating Officer till conclusion of trial.
(iii) They shall attend the Court on all hearing dates regularly and punctually.-7-
(iv) They shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE Dvr: