Karnataka High Court
Sathish vs State Of Karnataka on 22 August, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6429 OF 2022
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7540 OF 2022
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6429 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SATHISH
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O LAKKIRAMANAPALYA VILLAGE,
DABBEGHATTA HOBLI,
THURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572227 ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RAKSHA KEERTHANA K., ADVOCATE
FOR SRI KEMPARAJU B., ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NUGGEHALLI POLICE STATION,
REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.20/2022
(C.C.NO.493/2022) OF NUGGEHALLI P.S., HASSAN DISTRICT
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 302,
149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(Jr.Dn) AND JMFC, CHANNARAYAPATTANA, HASSAN DISTRICT.
2
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7540 OF 2022
BETWEEN
NAVEEN KUMAR L R
@ NAVEENA
S/O REVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT LAKKIRAMANAPALYA VILLAGE
DABBEGATTA HOBLI,
TAVAREKERE TLAUK,
TUMAKURU 572224 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NUGGEHALLI POLICE STATION
REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU 560001 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.493/2022
(CR.NO.20/2022) OF NUGGEHALLI P.S., HASSAN DISTRICT FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 302
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT,
CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The Crl.P.No.7540/2022 is filed by petitioner/accused No.3 and Crl.P.No.6429/2022 is filed by petitioner/accused No.4 and under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.20/2022 registered by Nuggehalli Police Station, Hassan District for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 149 of IPC, pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge, and JMFC, Channarayapattana, Hassan District in C.C.No.493/2022.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of the cousin brother of the deceased one Shivaramu who filed complaint to the police on 31.01.2022, alleging that on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. when he was in the house, he received a 4 phone call from Nagegowda informed that his cousin brother Anand Kumar said to have died due to injuries. Immediately he went there and enquired with one Manjamma who is an eyewitness to the incident, where she has stated when the deceased was riding the motorcycle, two unknown persons assaulted on the backside and the head and caused injury, thereafter they ran away by taking motorcycle, due to which Anandkumar died. After registering the case, they suspected accused Nos.1 and 2 and on the voluntary statement, these petitioners are arrested by the police on 09.02.2022. The further investigation paper revealed, that accused No.1 is wife of deceased who was having illicit relationship with accused No.2 Naveen Kumar and the deceased was obstructing them. Therefore, they decided to commit murder and on the instigation of accused Nos.1, the accused No.2 had given supari to accused Nos.3 and 4 of Rs.5.5 5 lakhs. Accordingly, accused Nos.3 to 4/the present petitioners are said to have committed murder. The investigation is completed, charge sheet has been filed. Their bail petition came to be rejected, hence they are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 contended that he is innocent of the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated. There is no eyewitness to the incident. Even otherwise one Manjamma said to be eyewitness but she has already identified accused in the police before 24.02.2022 and she has stated in her statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C that she has seen accused Nos.3 and 4 in the police station as shown by the police. Thereafter, test identification parade has been conducted on 08.03.2022, where she has identified only accused No.3, but not accused No.4. There is contradiction in the statement of the eyewitness and discrepancy in 6 identification of the accused who had seen the eyewitness in the custody with the Police. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The accused No.5 who is having similar allegation has been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court. Hence prayed for allowing the petitioner.
5. Per contra learned HCGP seriously objected the bail petition and contended accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired together to commit murder of deceased Anand Kumar giving supari of Rs.5.5 lakhs to accused Nos.3 and 4. The bank accounts clearly reveals accused No.4 received the amount through bank account and at various intervals, the amount was received by him. The accused Nos.3 and 4 had committed murder by assaulting. There are two eyewitness to the case, if they are granted bail they may abscond and also tamper with the prosecution 7 witnesses. The eye witnesses poured the water to the deceased, immediately after the assault and they saw the accused persons running away. Therefore, there was recovery of weapons, motorcycle from the accused persons. Also the bank statements clearly reveals receipt of the amount. The CDR statement of the mobile calls connects the accused to the crime. The bail petition of accused No.2 is already rejected by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5419/2022 dated 11.07.2022. Hence prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
6. Upon hearing the arguments of both the counsel, learned HCGP and perusal of records, which reveals of course accused No.1 is wife of deceased Anand Kumar said to be having illicit intimation with accused No.2/Naveen Kumar and the deceased was said to be an obstacle to their illicit relationship. Therefore, they conspired to commit murder of the 8 deceased. Accordingly, with the help of accused Nos.3 and 4 they eliminated the deceased on 31.01.2022 by paying supari of Rs.5.5 lakhs. On 31.01.2022, the accused Nos.3 and 4 went in a motorcycle and waited for arrival of Anand Kumar and committed murder. The eyewitness Manjamma and one Boralinge Gowda said to have seen accused Nos.3 and 4 on the spot when they assaulted the deceased and ran away from the spot in their motorcycle. Of course, both the eye witnesses had given their statement before the police as well as before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, where they stated that they had seen accused Nos.3 and 4 at the spot and in the police station. It is also not in dispute Tahazildar who conducted the test identification parade on 8.03.2022, where these witnesses said to have been identified accused No.3 but not accused No.4. Ofcourse, the accused were already seen by the 9 witnesses in the police station as per the 164 Cr.P.C statement. Subsequently, same witnesses identified accused in the jail during the test identification parade. Of course, these witnesses did not identify accused No.4, in the jail. However, accused No.4 bank statement reveals he had received money from accused No.2, which was the contract money for committing the murder of the deceased. Investigating Office recovered the weapon at the instance of the accused and also motorcycle used by the accused and identified phone number in which they had conversation of the accused persons accused Nos.1 and 2, which also reveals they conspired together to commit murder of the deceased Anand Kumar in respect of illegal intimacy. The co-ordinate bench while considering the bail application of accused No.2 had rejected the bail petition who is the root cause for the murder. The accused Nos.3 and 4 who actively 10 participated in the Commission of murder. While considering the bail petition of the accused No.5 the co-ordinate bench of this Court had categorically stated, the entire allegation goes against accused No.3 and 4 who actually committed murder, but the accused No.5 not at all participated in the place of occurrence, at the time of incidents, but he is said to be present along with accused No.4 in the earlier occasion, when they attempted to commit murder but it was unsuccessful. Therefore, the ground of parity of accused No.5, is not available to these petitioners as these petitioners actually committed murder for supari by receiving amount of Rs.5.5 lakhs. There is abundance materials placed on record for showing the involvement of these petitioners in committing murder. If the petitioners are granted bail, there is every possibility of committing similar offences and 11 tampering with the both eye witnesses, are not ruled out.
Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for bail. Accordingly both the petitions are dismissed Sd/-
JUDGE AKV