Karnataka High Court
Jeevankumar And Ors vs The State on 22 March, 2019
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200349/2019
BETWEEN:
1. Jeevankumar
S/o Chandramanna Natekar
Age: 37 Years, Occ: Painter
2. Satyamitra S/o Narasappa Gaadi
Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture
3. John S/o Buggappa Gaadi
Age: 45 Years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Hosalli (K)
Tq. & Dist. Yadgiri-585101
- Petitioners
(By Sri Nandkishore Boob, Advocate)
AND:
The State through
Gurumitkal Police Station
Now Represented by the Addl. SPP
HCKB at Kalaburagi
- Respondent
(By Sri P.S. Patil, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to release the
petitioners on bail in Cr.No.278/2017 of Gurumitkal Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
148, 342, 120B, 307, 302, 504 and 506 R/w Section 149 of
IPC, pending on the file of Sessions Judge, Yadgiri in
S.C.No.21/2018.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
This bail petition is filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos.5 to 7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with S.C.No.21/2018 arouse in Crime No.278/2017 of Gurumitkal P.S., registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 307, 302, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Since from the date of arrest, petitioners are in judicial custody and hence learned counsel prays for enlarging the petitioners on bail among the grounds urged therein.
3
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the records.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is evident in the complaint that one Abraham said to be the father of the deceased Isaac filed a complaint before the respondent police on 24.11.2017, alleging that accused have wrongfully restrained his son in the house of accused No.2-Petrappa @ Peter and assaulted him by tying to a neem tree situated infront of the house of the accused No.2 mercilessly assaulted the deceased and caused grievous injuries on his person, due to the injuries sustained by him that he lost his breath on 24.11.2017 at around 6.15 a.m. In pursuance of the complaint filed by the complainant, the case in Crime No.278/2017 came to be registered for the offences. Subsequently, the case has been taken up for investigation by the investigating officer, during 4 investigation he recorded the statement of several witnesses and so also conducted seizure mahazar.
Apart from that, investigation officer has conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased person and thereafter he has laid the charge sheet against the accused.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his argument that the petitioners are innocent person and they have not at all committed the alleged offences, despite of it they have been implicated in the crime by arraigning as accused Nos.5 to 7. Accused No.1 said to be the husband of C.W.8-Nirmala, she being the daughter-in-law of petitioner No.2/accused No.6, aged about more than 60 years and he is suffering from old age ailment. Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 /accused Nos.5 and 7 are also having two children in their family consisting of their wife, sons and more than considerable period they are 5 in judicial custody, they are the bread winner in the family to eke out the life of the dependents. If the petitioners are kept behind the bar for a longer period that the family members would ruin in the society. This fact requires to be considered apart from the other grounds urged that the co-accused No.2 has already been released on bail in Crl.P.No.201535/2018 dated 06.03.2019 by imposing certain conditions stipulated therein. The charge sheet has been laid by the investigation officer against the accused and that there is no direct overt-act attributed against these petitioners for having committed the murder of the deceased and also causing injuries on the person of deceased-Isaac, who said to have illicit relationship with C.W.8-Nirmala, she being the wife of accused No.1-Yesumitra. The incident was taken place in the premises of the house of the accused No.2 as the deceased had some illicit relationship with C.W.8-Nirmala, the same has been revealed in the material, which collected by the 6 investigation officer. Whereas, the contents found in the complaint said to be filed by the complainant- Abraham before the respondent police that the accused said to be committed the murder of his son but there is no eyewitnesses to the said incident. But, the deceased had illicit relationship with C.W.8-Nirmala, for that reason only the incident was taken place in the house of the accused No.2. Except these material which found place in the record as where the investigation officer laid the charge sheet against the accused, there is no direct overt-act attributed against these petitioners. Though there are eyewitnesses about to the incident who have been cited in the charge sheet, but they never tried to separate the quarrel took place in between the accused and the deceased-Isaac in the premises of the house of the accused No.2. These petitioners are in judicial custody since from the date of their arrest and this is a successive bail petition filed by them seeking for bail as where the petitioners are ready to abide by any terms 7 and conditions to be imposed by this Court while granting bail to them. All these grounds are urged by the learned counsel seeking for bail even for extending the principles of parity to these petitioners as co- accused No.2 has already been released on bail by imposing certain conditions as stipulated therein.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State who has taken me through substances in the FIR said to be recorded by the police and thereafter proceeded with the case for investigation. As the deceased-Isaac had an illicit relationship with C.W.8-Nirmala, who has been cited as witness in the charge sheet as where the investigation officer has laid the charge sheet against the accused, there is no dispute that accused No.1 said to be husband of C.W.8- Nirmala, but there are some allegation made against these petitioners to indicate that they were also participated with other accused on the fateful day in the 8 premises of the house of the accused No.2 and also assaulted on the person of the deceased, the same has been revealed from the charge sheet laid by the investigation officer. The dead body of deceased-Isaac had been sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination, wherein the doctor has conducted the autopsy over the dead body, which reveals in all twenty injuries such as, abrasion, liner abrasion, contusion, lacerated wound over the left side of neck etc. These are all the injury reveals in the postmortem report said to be issued by the doctor. The prosecution has placed the statement of C.W.8, 14, 18 and 19, they are the eyewitnesses to the case of the prosecution as wherein they have witnessed the incident taken place in the premises of the house of the accused No.2-Petrappa @ Peter. Therefore, if the petitioners are supposed to be released on bail, certainly they would come in the way of the prosecution and destroy the prosecution evidence. These are all the grounds urged by the learned High 9 Court Government Pleader for the State and seeking for dismissal of the bail petition filed by the petitioners.
6. In these context of the contention as taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners relating to the case in Crime No.278/2017 of Gurumitkal P.S., wherein the investigation officer has already been laid the charge sheet against in S.C.No.21/2018 for the aforesaid offences stated supra. The present bail petition filed by the petitioners is a successive bail petition seeking for bail, therefore it is relevant to refer the citation in the case of Babu Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1978) 1 SCC 579, wherein at paragraph No.2 it is held as under;
"2. Briefly we will state the facts pertinent to the present petition and prayer and proceed thereafter to ratiocinate on the relevant criteria in considering the interlocutory relief of bail. Right at the beginning, we must mention that, at an earlier stage, their application for bail was rejected by this Court on September 7, 1977. But an order refusing an application for bail 10 does not necessarily preclude another, on a later occasion, giving more materials, further developments and different considerations. While we surely must set store by this circumstance, we cannot accede to the faint plea that we are barred from second consideration at a later stage. An interim direction is not a conclusive adjudication, and updated reconsideration is not over- turning an earlier negation. In this view, we entertain the application and evaluate the merits pro and con."
7. In view of the ratio, it is require to be re-evaluate the material relating to the charge sheet laid by the investigation officer against the accused for the offences involved, but the complainant is none other than the father of the deceased-Isaac. C.W.8 said to be the wife of the accused No.1-Yesumitra. Accused No.2-Petrappa @ Peter is the relative of accused No.1. Petitioner No.2/accused No.6 herein being the father of the accused No.1, aged about 60 years and also he has been lugged in the alleged crime relating to the death of Isaac. At this stage, it is relevant to state that deceased-Isaac had illicit relationship with C.W.8- 11 Nirmala, who is none other than the wife of the accused No.1-Yesumitra and so also daughter-in-law of the petitioner No.2/ accused No.6. The same has been revealed in the material which collected by the investigation officer during the course of the investigation. The investigation officer has recorded the statement of Samadamma on 26.11.2017, wherein in her statement she has stated that on Thursday that her son Isaac had been to the house of accused No.1- Yesumitra for the purpose of securing sickle. In the meanwhile, accused No.1-Yesumitra said to be the husband of C.W.8-Nirmala returned to the house and seen that deceased-Isaac had an illicit relationship with his wife C.W.8-Nirmala. Because of this reason, the incident has taken place in the premises of the house of the accused No.2-Petrappa @ Peter. The allegation made against the accused that they have assaulted the deceased and also causing for injuries on his person, but the postmortem report reveals as the abrasion 12 injuries and lacerated injuries and also liner injuries over the person of the deceased. These are all the injuries, which were noted by the doctor at the time of autopsy conducted over the dead body, it is relevant to state that during the course of the inquest proceedings held over the dead body by the concerned investigation officer, therein also noted the injuries which were inflicted on the person of the deceased. These are all the materials which were collected by the investigation officer during the course of the investigation, apart from that, the investigation officer held seizure panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses and also conducted spot mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses as where the incident has taken place in the premises of the house of the accused No.2. This bail petition is concerned it is required to be restriction relating to consideration of these material facts which were found in the charge sheet as this petition filed by the petitioners is a successive bail petition. Therefore, by 13 following the material which were collected by the investigation officer that whatever the materials secured by the during the course of the investigation, it is enough material to lay the charge sheet against the accused. But, it is necessary to state that the material in which it has been secured by the investigation officer during the course of the investigation, it cannot be said that it is enough material to decline the bail sought for by this petitioners. It is relevant to state that when the charge sheet has been laid by the investigation officer against the accused and wherein the accused were require to be facing of trial, therefore it is said that at this stage it does not require any detail discussion while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioners, as there are substances in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking for the relief of bail. Whereas, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State emphatically submitted that if the petitioners are supposed to be released on bail, certainly 14 they would come in the way of the prosecution and destroy the prosecution evidence, these expressions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State could be curtailed by imposing suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reason as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following;
ORDER Bail petition filed by the petitioners / accused Nos.5 to 7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 7 are directed to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-
1. The petitioners shall execute their personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the 15 concerned Court where the case in S.C.No.21/2018 is pending;
2. The petitioners shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses;
3. The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a month i.e., in the first week of Sunday in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. before the concerned S.H.O., pending disposal of the entire case;
4. The petitioners shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioners violate any of the conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL