Karnataka High Court
Omkar S/O Sharanappa Patne vs The State on 3 September, 2022
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03 RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201063/2022
BETWEEN:
OMKAR
S/O SHARANAPPA PATNE
AGED 30 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O ALUR (K) VILLAGE,
TQ AURAD (B)
DIST BIDAR 585326
...Petitioner
(By Sri: ANIL KUMAR NAVADAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:-
THE STATE
THROUGH SANTHPUR POLICE STATION,
TQ AURAD DIST KALABURAGI
BY THE ADDL SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH 585103
....Respondent
(By Sri:GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP )
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME No. 81/2021 (S.C.
NO.59/2022) OF SHANTHAPUR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT-
BIDAR, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 120(B), 109,
302, 201, R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. DIST.
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BIDAR.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeking to enlarge the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.1, on bail in Crime No.81/2021 of Santhapur Police Station, Bidar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 109, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), on the file of the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Bidar in S.C.No.59/2022.
02. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint came to be filed by one Reshmabai who is mother of the deceased stating that she has got two sons by name Shivakumar aged about 40 years and Vijayakumar aged about 38 years. Accused No.2 Surekha got married to his son - Shivakumar and they have got a daughter by name Aishwarya, aged about 15 years and a son by name Amaranath aged about 07 years. It is alleged that there was dispute between the neighbouring land owners in respect of the Katta i.e., bund of their land with one Sharanappa. On 3 05.12.2021 at about 08.00 a.m. Shivakumara- deceased went to the land to bring fodder for the animals, but he did not come back till 10.00 a.m. The complainant went to their land and found the dead body of her son in the middle of the Toor crop land. She found that someone had assaulted her son on his neck with a sickle and a stick. Hence, she has lodged a complaint against two persons namely Sharanappa and Bhadrappa. Thereafter, the police took up the investigation. During the course of investigation as per the charge sheet, it is found that that petitioner/ accused No.1 - Omkar developed the intimacy with accused No.2 - Surekha wife of the deceased since 6 to 7 years. It is also alleged that the petitioner had physical relation with accused No.2 - Surekha. It is further alleged that four months prior to this alleged incident, deceased Shivakumar had seen his wife and the petitioner in compromising position in their house and from that time he started ill-treating accused No.2. Hence, he was having grudge against accused No.2 and the petitioner. The deceased warned his wife - accused No.2 not to meet the petitioner/accused No.1. It is further alleged that petitioner gave voluntary statement stating that he 4 intends to eliminate the deceased to continue the illicit relationship with the accused No.2. Hence, petitioner and accused No.2 hatched a crminal conspiracy to eliminate Shivakumar-deceased. In furtherance of the conspiracy, petitioner assaulted the deceased with a sickle and a stick. After investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet. The petitioner is arrested and he is judicial custody. His bail petition came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition.
03. Heard Sri. Anilkumar Navadagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Gururaj V. Hasilkar, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent State.
04. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the name of this petitioner is not shown in the FIR. The charge sheet also does not disclose the reason to drop the names of persons shown in the FIR. There is no eyewitness to the incident and the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence and the petitioner was already interrogated. On the basis of phone call records of the petitioner and accused No.2, the police have arrested this 5 petitioner, but no phones were seized. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Alur (K) village and he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. The investigation is already completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
05. Against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader filed objections along with C.D. records and argued that the police found the phone calls made by the petitioner to accused No.2 - Surekha. The police have also seized the sickle and the stick at the instance of the petitioner. The alleged offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is the petitioner who is responsible for the death of the deceased as deceased had seen this petitioner with accused No.2 - Surekha in compromising position. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may threaten the prosecution witnesses and he may abscond. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
06. I have perused the FIR, charge sheet and other materials. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner is not 6 shown in the FIR. The name of other two persons is shown in the FIR. It is alleged that accused No.2 made two attempts to kill her husband by administrating poison in the food and deceased was admitted to the hospital. In this regard, the police have made investigation and secured the records from Sparsh Hospital, Bidar. But the said records does not show administering of any poison and detection of any poison. It is also alleged that accused No.2 had called the petitioner over phone and in this regard the customer call records have been produced to show that the petitioner has received a phone call from accused No.2 and that SIM Card is said to have been purchased on 14.06.2017, but it is not standing in the name of accused No.2. Of-course, the main allegation of assault is on accused No.1. Infact, the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. This petitioner is not required for investigation. If the C.D. records and other records are perused, there is nothing to implicate petitioner at this stage. The material produced before the Court does not show any prima-facie involvement of this petitioner in the commission of conspiracy. Merely, on the basis of his voluntary statement, this petitioner is implicated in this case. 7 The entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has to prove the chain of circumstances to link the petitioner to the incident in question.
07. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into consideration, (1) the nature and seriousness of the offence; (2) character of the accused;
(3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused;
(4) reasonable probabilities of presence of the accused not being secured at trial;
(5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; and (6) larger interest of public or the State and similar other considerations, which arise when a Court is asked to admit the accused to bail in a non-bailable offence.
08. There is only one witness who has seen last seen the deceased going towards his land. Except that, there is not other witness at this stage who have last seen the deceased in the company of the petitioner. 8
09. So, in the light of these principles if the present allegations against the petitioner, If the charge sheet materials and statement of witnesses are considered, in my considered view, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
10. The apprehension of the prosecution can be meted out by imposing reasonable conditions on the petitioner, as he has undertaken to co-operate with the investigation and furnish sureties. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The petitioner - accused No.1 - Omkar, S/o Sharanappa Patne, in Crime No.81/2021 of Shanthapur Police Station Dist: Bidar, on the file of the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Bidar in S.C.No.59/2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 109, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions. 9
i) The petitioner shall execute a self-bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only) with a surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
ii) The petitioner shall not try to tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities.
iv) The petitioner shall furnish proof of his
residential correct address to the
investigating officer and shall inform the Court/Investigating Officer if there is any change in the address.
v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of Trial Court.
vi) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing without fail as and when directed, unless his presence is exempted.10
In case if any of the conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move the application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE *MN/-