Karnataka High Court
Subrahmanya Gopi Samaru vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 2196
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10 T H DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101007/2021
BETWEEN:
SUBRAHMANYA S/ O: GOPI SAMARU
AGE 34 YEARS , OCC. TAILORIN G
R/O . CHOUDARI GALLI,
BHARACHI ROAD , NEAR CHOUDARI
GATE, TQ DANDELI,
DIST: UTTARA KA NNADA (KARWAR)
PIN CODE NO- 581325
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VASANT.G.HOLEYANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA DHARWAD,
THROUGH PSI D HA RWAD RURA L
POLI CE STATION,DHARWAD-580008.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI , HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO RELEASE T HE PETITIONER /
ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN DHARWAD RURAL POLICE
STATION CRIME NO.157/2019 i.e., NOW IN CC
NO.3871/2019 N OW IN SESSION S CASE NO.4/2021
FOR THE OFF ENCE UNDER SECTION 120(B) , 302, 201
R/W 34 OF IPC AN D UNDER SECTION 27( 3) OF INDIAN
ARMS ACT, 1959 WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE
FILE OF IV ADD L. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUD GE,
DHARWAD.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the accused under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.157/2019 of Dharwad Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302, 201 r/w 34 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Section 27(3) of Arms Act, 1959.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Joseph Johnson S/o: Narasimhalu Maitakuri, has filed the complaint against three unknown persons and the same came to be rejected in Crime No.157/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC 3 and Section 27(3) of Arms Act, 1959. In the complaint, it is stated that the deceased Shamsundar S/o Narasimhalu Maitakuri, was his brother and he was working as accounts head in Panasonic Company in Bengaluru and he was residing along with his wife and children. He was transferred to Delhi and he went to Delhi by leaving his wife and children in Dandeli and he used to often visit Dandeli. On 21.09.2019, the deceased came to Dandeli on leave and spent some time with his family members. On 25.09.2019, he was going to Delhi by plane from Hubballi. Accordingly, he proceeded to Hubballi in his car bearing registration No.KA-01/ML-6706 along with the children of the first informant and it was driven by the driver namely Abdul Mutalib Shaikh (CW.18). The deceased dropped the children to 4 their school and went towards Hubballi. At around 09.33 a.m., the driver of the car telephoned the first informant and informed that while they were proceedings towards Hubballi, three persons came on motorcycle by following their car and stopped their car at Salakinakoppa village near Dharwad in an isolated place. The last pillion rider of the motorcycle came near the car along with pistol and fired a bullet upon the deceased on left shoulder of the deceased and he sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious. The persons who came on the motorcycle ran away from the spot along with motorcycle. Therefore, the first informant told the driver to take the deceased to the District Hospital, Dharwad. The driver took the deceased to the hospital for treatment, when the first informant 5 rushed to the District Hospital, Dharwad, he came to know that the deceased died on the way to the hospital. The said complaint came to be registered in crime No.157/2019 of Dharwad Rural Police Station, for the aforesaid offences. The Investigating Officer invoked Section 120(B), 302 of IPC, during the investigation and arrested the accused persons on 28.09.2019 and recorded their voluntary statement. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet. The petitioner-accused No.1 has filed bail application in Crl.Misc.No.409/2021 and the same came to be rejected by IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, by order dated 17.05.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
6
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It would be the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The driver of the car (CW.18), who saw the three persons who came on the motorcycle has not stated regarding their identity as such fatness, fairness and their height etc. He further contended that CW.18 has identified the said three persons in test identification parade held on 31.10.2019. The said test identification parade is farce since prior to that on 29.09.2019, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were taken by the Investigating Officer to different 7 places and held mahazar at Dandeli, Haliyal, Dharwad and Kalaghatagi by taking their photos without any mask on their face and the said photos of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were available with the police and police might have been shown those photos to CW.18. He further contended that the statement of CW.18 has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 12.11.2019 (i.e. after TI parade) but he has not stated the names of accused Nos.1, 2 and
4. Even though he has identified them in TI parade held on 31.10.2019 and therefore it appears that no TI parade has been conducted. He further contended that accused No.1, alleged to have been shot the deceased with pistol but he is a tailor by profession and he does not know to operate the pistol. The accused No.1 is suffering from Kidney stones 8 as per the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Central Prison, Dharwad on 05.06.2021 and therefore he requires treatment for the same in private hospital. The accused No.1 is in judicial custody since 28.09.2019 since last one year eight months and as the charge sheet has been filed, he is no more required for any custodial interrogation. The petitioner is ready to furnish surety and abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the alleged offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused is heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The specific overt act alleged against the 9 petitioner-accused No.1 is that he shot the pistol to the deceased and caused injury and who succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. CWs.18 and 19 are the eye-witnesses to the incident and they have identified accused No.1-petitioner herein. The TI parade has been conducted wherein CW.18, the driver of the car of the deceased has identified accused No.1, as the person who fired the pistol at deceased. He further contended that if, the petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government 10 Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
7. As per the charge sheet, CWs.18 and 19 are the eye-witnesses to the incident. CW.18 is the driver of the car of deceased who was driving the car at the time of incident. CW.18, has identified the petitioner-accused No.1 in TI parade held on 31.10.2019. The petitioner-accused No.1 was arrested on 28.09.2019 and after more than a month TI parade has been conducted. The investigating officer took accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 on 29.09.2019 to Dandeli, Haliyal, Dharwad and Kalaghatagi, wherein they shown different places and mahazar was held and their photographs were taken without mask, which are part of the charge sheet. The photographs of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were with the police 11 between 29.09.2019 to 31.10.2019 i.e. the date of TI parade. Therefore, the learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the TI parade is farce. Even the submission of CW.18 has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 12.11.2019 (i.e. after TI parade on 31.10.2019), wherein he has not stated the names of accused and with regard to his identification in TI parade held on 31.10.2019. CW.19 is another eye-witness and he was running a tea stall near the scene of offence and in his statement dated 25.09.2019, he has stated that he heard the sound of firing and he saw three persons near the car of deceased who went away on bike. He gave further statement on 29.09.2019, at that time accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were shown to him in the police station. His statement was recorded under 12 Section 164 of Cr.P.C on 12.11.2019, but he has not told the names of accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 and regarding he identifying them in police station on 29.09.2019. All these aspects requires consideration during trial. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.09.2019 since more than one year eight months as the charge sheet has been filed, the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. The petitioner is the resident of the address shown in the cause title and the same is not disputed. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. 13
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in Crime No.157/2019 of Dharwad Rural Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Due to COVID-19, the petitioner is permitted to furnish 14 surety within two months. If circumstances arise, the jurisdictional Court is permitted to extend the period for furnishing surety.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance on first Sunday of each month in jurisdictional Police Station between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the disposal of the case registered against him.
Sd/-
JUDGE RM