Karnataka High Court
Peeresh S/O Ambarai Hadapad vs State Of Karnataka on 23 April, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200294/2018
Between:
Peeresh S/o Ambarai Hadapad
Age: about 29 years, Occ: CRPF Constable
R/o Tambadvadi Tq:Aland
Dist: Kalaburagi 585 105
... Petitioner
(By Sri, Sanjay A. Patil Advocate)
And:
State of Karnataka through
Police Jalanagar Police Station
Tq: & Dist: Vijayapur
Represented by Addl. SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench 585 104
... Respondent
(By Sri, Mallikarjun Sahukar HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., by the advocate for the petitioner praying that, this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to release the petitioner on
bail in crime No.98/2017, Jalanagar police station Dist:
Vijayapur for the offences punishable under sections 143,
2
147, 148, 120(B) 307, 506 R/w Sec.149 of Indian Penal Code
and under section 25, 27 of Indian Arms Act and under
section 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST (PA) Act pending before the II
Addl. District & Sessions Judge Vijayapur.
This petition is coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in Special Case No.45/2017 pending on the file of II Addl. Sessions/ Special Judge Vijayapura for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 307 & 506 R/w section 149 of Indian Penal Code, under section 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act and section 3(2) (V) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 arising out of crime No.98/2017 of Jalanagar police station Vijayapura.
Facts of the case are as under:
2. According to the complainant Ravutappa S/o Bheemappa Kamble, who lodged complaint on 08-08- 3
2017 against the unknown accused persons to the effect that, the injured Bhagappa Harijan being the uncle of the complainant made a phone call on 07-08-2017 at about 6.00 p.m., and requested him to come over to Vijayapura on 08-08-2017 in bus-stand at 10.00 a.m., the complainant met the injured, both of them proceeded to court in Auto Rickshaw where in the court campus the complainant heard the rounds of firing and immediately observed that, his uncle Bhagappa Harijan screamed and fell down on the ground and observed that, Bhagappa Harijan /injured sustained gun-shot injury on the back side of his left leg, complainant got frightened and ran away, but however in the court compound public gathered near the injured and complainant returned back.
3. It was further contended in the petition that, he is innocent person and he has not committed any crime much less alleged in the police papers, no 4 way concerned with the crime. He is law abiding citizen. Initially the case was registered against unknowing persons, only on the voluntary statement of accused No.1 the present petitioner/accused No.7 has been implicated after delay of six days from the date of registration of the case. It was further contended that, the voluntary statement by the petitioner/accused No.7 in the police custody is not admissible in the eye of law and the petitioner/accused has worked in the defense as police constable and he is permanent resident of Tambakwadi Tq: Aland District Kalaburagi. It was further averred in the petition that, accused Nos.1 to 6 already released on bail who have direct motive in the case, since the co-accused already released on bail. The petitioner/accused No.7 is also standing on the same footing has to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
5
4. It was also further contended that, accused No.1 confessed the crime, the victim was a rowdy involved in many cases tried by the Court of Vijayapura. The petitioner has been included in the charge sheet based on the circumstantial evidence and there are no direct eyewitnesses to the case. The petitioner/accused No.7 is ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this court in the event of granting bail. Therefore, he sought to allow the petition.
5. Respondent/State filed objections mainly contending that, during the course of investigation the accused No.1 arrested who made a statement that he has entrusted supari to the present petitioner/accused No.7 to do away with the life of Bhagappa Harijan for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and the same is admitted by the petitioner/accused No.7 in his statement recorded under section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further contended that, pistol used for the offence 6 was seized from the possession of the present petitioner and one witness Shri.Vinod S/o Laxman Mane identified the accused in identification parade. Therefore, sought to reject the bail petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, initially on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Rautappa the jurisdictional police registered criminal case against the unknown persons and during the course of investigation and on the basis of the statement made by the accused No.1, the present petitioner has been included in the charge sheet as accused No.7. It is also not in dispute that, the present petitioner a defense personal working as constable in CRPF and permanent resident of Tambakwadi Taluka Aland Dist:Kalaburagi. There is no direct evidence against the present petitioner /accused No.7 and there is delay of six days in implicating the present petitioner/accused No.7 in the FIR. There is 7 discrepancy or arrival of court by Auto Rickshaw as per complaint and by Mahindra vehicle as per the investigation. There is no material collected from the present petitioner/accused No.7 in the entire proceedings except the pistol while recording statement under section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the police that has to be investigated during the course of trial. According to the petitioner/accused No.7 he has been falsely implicated. The police have filed charge sheet against the present petitioner/accused No.7 only on the basis of the statement made by accused No.1 and on suspicion, the confession statement of another accused cannot be used against the co-accused. According to the petitioner/accused No.7 , he is only earning member of his family. The charge sheet has already been filed. The accused Nos.1 to 6 have been already released on bail by the II Addl. Sesions /Special Judge, Vijayapura.
8
7. In view of the above circumstances, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail imposing stringent conditions, no prejudice will be caused to the complainant or the state in proceeding with the trial.
8. For the reasons stated supra and applying principles of law of parity, the petitioner/accused No.7 is also entitled to be released on bail by imposing stringent conditions. Accordingly the petition filed by the petitioner under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.7 is released on bail subject to following conditions:
1) The petitioner/accused No.7 shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
2) The petitioner/accused No.7 shall not threat the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 9
3) The petitioner/accused No.7 shall not destroy the evidence.
4) The petitioner/accused No.7 shall keep himself present before the court whenever requires his presence.
5) The petitioner/accused No.7 shall appear before the court on all the dates of hearing.
6) The petitioner/accused No.7 shall not involve in any criminal activities during the pendency of the Special Case No.45/2017.
7) If the petitioner/accused No.7 involve in any other case during the pendency of the special case stated supra, the conditional bail granted stands automatically cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE MWS CT/VK