Karnataka High Court
Shambhuling S/O. Iranna Porapur vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100276/2021
BETWEEN:
1. SHAMBHULING
S/O. IRANNA PORAPUR
AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS
R/O: YATTINAHALLI
TQ: HAVERI
2. MANJUNATH
S/O. SURESH YARESHIMI
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS
R/O. YATTINAHALLI
TQ: HAVERI
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SUMANGALA A. CHAKALABBI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(BY HAVERI TOWN POLICE STATION)
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD
2. SANJEEV S/O. BENNEPPA SHIRAGUPPI,
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: LABOURER
R/O. VIJAYANAGAR BADAVANE,
2
GUTTAL ROAD,
HAVERI-581 110
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;
R2-SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 READ WITH SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON
REGULAR BAIL FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 READ WITH SECTIONS 34 AND
3(2)(V), 3(2)(V)(a) OF SC/ST P.A. ACT 2015 IN SPL.SC/ST C.
NO.20/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS COURT, HAVERI, ON SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND JUST IN
THE ABOVE CASE.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this appeal seeking to set aside the order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Spl.SC/ST C. No.20/2021, whereunder the bail application of the appellants came to be rejected. The said special case is registered against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 3 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(V) and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST P.A. Act, 1989.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Sanjeev Shiraguppi of Vijayanagar Extension, Haveri, has filed complaint against unknown persons which came to be registered in Crime No.27/2021 of Haveri Town Police Station for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC. During investigation of the said case the appellants came to be arrested on 17.03.2021 and they were remanded to the judicial custody. Charge-sheet has been filed against the appellants for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(V) and 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST P.A. Act, 1985.
3. The accusation leveled against the appellants in the charge-sheet is that deceased Ningappa Shiraguppi was working as Hamal 4 and Driver in a Lorry belonging to accused No.1 since long time and another deceased Ganesh was the friend of deceased Ningappa. Accused No.2 is also the driver of Accused No.1. Accused No.1 was doing transport business since one year by taking leased premises in Malimath Complex as transport office. The deceased Ningappa had taken hand loan amounting to 3-4 lakhs from accused No.1 and instead of repaying the said loan he started threatening and harassing accused No.1. On 16.03.2021 between 4.00 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. the accused and the deceased were sitting in APMC Yard, Haveri and accused No.1 demanded to repay the loan amount otherwise he would take his motorcycle and give it on lease and thereby taken his motorcycle. Therefore, the deceased Ningappa was 5 threatening the appellants. Since the deceased Ningappa threatened the appellants, appellants made criminal conspiracy to take away the life of the deceased Ningappa and on 16.03.2021 at about 11.00 p.m., when deceased Ningappa and his friend Ganesh were sleeping in the said office of the appellant-accused No.1, appellant- accused No.1 assaulted the deceased Ningappa with motorcycle pork rod and wheel pana on his head 3-4 times. Upon hearing the sound when his friend Ganesh woke up, accused No.2 assaulted him with a wheel pana and dumbbells 2-3 times and committed murder of Ningappa and Ganesh and tried to destroy the used weapons and the worn clothes of deceased persons to screen off the incident. After filing the charge-sheet the appellants filed bail application in Spl.SC/ST C. No.20/2021 and the 6 same came to be rejected by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, by order dated 01.09.2021. Appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 have challenged the said order in the present appeal.
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned HCGP for the 1 s t respondent - State. In spite of service of notice respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.
5. It would be the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent, they have not committed any offence as alleged and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The names of the appellants have not been mentioned in the complaint and it was filed against unknown 7 persons. Based on suspicion, the appellants were implicated in the case for the reason that there was a monetary transaction between appellant No.1 and the deceased Ningappa and that the incident has taken place in the premises belonging appellant No.1. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The appellants were implicated in the case only based on the voluntary statement and recovery of weapons. It is submitted that there are no documents regarding monetary transaction between the appellants and the deceased Ningappa and no documents regarding loan taken by the deceased. It is submitted that deceased Ningappa was involved in two criminal cases wherein in one case he has been sentenced to life imprisonment. It is his 8 further submission that since the deceased Ningappa was a person of criminal nature somebody might have committed his murder. He further submits that the very fact that accused No.1 allowed the deceased Ningappa to sleep in his office premises shows no enmity between them. Charge-sheet has been filed and the appellants are not required for any custodial interrogation. Without considering all these aspects the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application of appellants which requires interference by this Court. With this, he prayed for allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the alleged offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The case of the 9 prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence and the CWs.12 to 14 have stated regarding monetary transaction between the deceased Ningappa and accused No.1. CWs.15 to 18 have stated regarding the fact that deceased Ningappa and deceased Ganesh were sleeping in the office of accused No.1. The weapons used were recovered at the instance of the appellants under Mahazar. The lorry used by the appellants to run away from spot has been seized under Mahazar. The Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination of the dead bodies of Ningappa and Ganesh, have opined that the death is due to shock and hemorrhage due to head injuries sustained. The charge-sheet material shows prima facie case against the appellants for the offence alleged. Considering all these aspects the 10 learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellants, which does not require any interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge-sheet papers and the impugned order.
8. The accusation leveled against the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 is that the deceased Ningappa had borrowed money from accused No.1 and whenever appellant No.1 demanded repayment, deceased Ningappa used to quarrel with him, therefore the appellants have committed murder of deceased Ningappa and deceased Ganesh in the leased premises 11 taken by accused No.1. The motive for the offence is the monetary transaction that has taken place between accused No.1 and deceased Ningappa. The weapons used i.e. pork rod of motorcycle and wheel pana were recovered at the instance of the appellants from the bush under Mahazar. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. Since the case of the prosecution is based on circumstances evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstances during trial.
9. The deceased was involved in Sessions Case and he has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in S.C.No.6/2015 and he is also involved in Haveri Town Police Station 12 Crime No.262/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC and other offences.
10. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, as the deceased Ningappa was involved in criminal cases, somebody might have committed his murder. As the charge-sheet is filed, the appellants are not required for any custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the appellants. Without considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants, which requires interference by this Court. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the appellants are likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution 13 witnesses. The said objection can be met with by imposing stringent conditions.
11. 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 setting aside the impugned order and granting bail to the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 subject to terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed.
The impugned order dated 01.09.2021 passed in Spl.SC/SC. C.No.20/2021 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, is set aside. Consequently, the bail application filed by the appellants under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. stands allowed. The appellants- 14 accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be released on bail in Spl.SC/ST C. No.20/2021 pending on the file I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, subject to the following conditions: i) The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2
shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each, with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.ii) The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2
shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.iii) The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2
shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-
operate in speedy disposal of the
case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
S b s/ R M *