Karnataka High Court
Umesh K S/O. Dodda Mookanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2022
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102995 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
UMESH K S/O. DODDA MOOKANNA
AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. 9TH WARD, SIRGUPPA TOWN,
BALLARI-583116.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH TEKKALAKOTE POLICE STATION),
REPRESENTED BY ITS,
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN SC NO.09/2021 IN
CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.84/2020 REGISTERED IN
TEKKALAKOTE POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 302,
-2-
CRL.P No. 102995 of 2022
201, 34 OF IPC PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE BEFORE THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS TH IS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.1 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.84/2020 of Tekkalakote Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for brevity), pending in S.C. No.9/2021 on the file of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, one Rajitha Kumar has filed the complaint stating that -3- CRL.P No. 102995 of 2022 the deceased H.Veeresh Gouda who is his brother and he has purchased a car for running it on hire basis. On 14.10.2020 at 10.30 a.m. as usual the deceased left home. On 15.10.2020 at about 6.00 a.m., when the complainant was in his house, at that time one M. Mareppa informed him about the murder of his brother. Thereafter, the complainant, his brother and elders of the village went to Devinagar Camp situated after crossing Welcome Board, found a car which was parked on the street, in which his brother found lying dead at leg spacing in front of the back seat of the car with bloodstains and also found injuries on his face and chest. He found one person in the Police custody who loved a girl at Siruguppa, with whom the deceased also had love affair, so there is animosity between them. In that regard the complainant and his family members were advised the deceased not to involve in the matter of the said girl. On -4- CRL.P No. 102995 of 2022 enquiry with the P.S.I. about the incident they came to know that at 3.30 a.m., they were on highway patrolling duty, when they were returning from Siruguppa towards Ballari on highway, they came across a car parked on the side of the road facing towards Siruguppa near welcome board at Devinagar Camp, in which a person was found sitting and napping in the driver seat and noticed a dead body with bloodstains lying on the leg space of back seat of the car and they went to the spot and identified the said body as his brother. It is further stated that for the sake of love towards a girl of Siruguppa, on 14.10.2020 accused No.1 has taken the deceased H. Veeresh Gouda to unknown place and accused No.2 held the deceased and accused No.1 killed him by stabbing his neck with knife, kept the body in the car, parked the car by side of Siruguppa-Ballari National Highway, near Welcome Board at Devinagar Camp, Ballari. The -5- CRL.P No. 102995 of 2022 said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.84/2020 of Takkalakote Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The Police after the investigation filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 34 of IPC. The petitioner/accused No.1 came to be arrested on 17.07.2020 and he is in judicial custody. The case is pending in S.C. No.9/2021. The petitioner has filed bail application in S.C. No.9/2021 and the same came to be rejected by learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari by order dated 01.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. -6- CRL.P No. 102995 of 2022
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The main circumstance is last seen of deceased with the petitioner and another accused by CWs-15 and 16. It is his further submission that some of the charge sheet witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is his further submission that accused No.2 has been granted bail and therefore, this petitioner/accused No.1 is also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that this petitioner/accused No.1 and accused No.2 were seen by CWs-15 and 16 with the deceased who was -7- CRL.P No. 102995 of 2022 injured at that time. Subsequently in a short space of time, the deceased was found dead and there were injuries on the neck and other parts of the body. It is his further submission that there was a motive for this petitioner/accused No.1 to commit the murder of the deceased as he was also loving the same girl to that of accused No.1. It is his further submission that the petitioner and another accused purchased knife from Flipkart by online order and made preparation and committed the murder of the deceased. It is his further submission that there is recovery of said knife at the instance of petitioner/accused No.1 under Mahazar. The doctor who conducted post mortem examination has noted 14 injuries and opined that cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of wounds caused by sharp object. The said knife and clothes of the deceased have been sent for FSL examination and they were found -8- CRL.P No. 102995 of 2022 stained with human blood of 'A' Group. It is his further submission that the charge sheet material shows prima facie case against the petitioner/accused No.1 for the offence alleged against him. Merely because some of the witnesses are examined and out of them some witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, is not a ground for grant of bail. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records and the other documents produced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The accusation against this petitioner/accused No.1 is that he along with -9- CRL.P No. 102995 of 2022 accused No.2 made a plan to kill the deceased who was loving the same girl to that of accused No.1 and secured him and this petitioner/accused No.1 assaulted him with knife on his neck and other parts of the body and committed his murder and when he was shifting the dead body in a car, the Police found him. Apart from this, the petitioner and accused No.2 were seen last with the deceased when he was in injured condition. There is a recovery of knife at the instance of petitioner/accused No.1 under Mahazar, which subsequently examined and was found with blood stains of human 'A' Group. The doctor who conducted post mortem examination has noted 14 injuries over the dead body of the deceased and opined that cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of wounds caused by sharp object. This petitioner/accused No.1 and another accused purchased the said knife by making order
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 102995 of 2022 online through Flipkart. Merely because some of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution, is not a ground for grant of bail as this Court cannot appreciate the evidence at this stage of considering the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused No.1 has not made out any ground for grant of bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMM