Karnataka High Court
Vinay Rajashekarappa Kulkarni vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 24 May, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 2641
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2601 OF 2021
BETWEEN
VINAY RAJASHEKARAPPA KULKARNI
S/O LATE RAJASHEKARAPPA KULKARNI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O NAIKNUR
NAVALGUND
DHARWAD - 580 001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADV.)
AND
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH
NO.36 BELLARY ROAD
GANGANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 032
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.V. RAJU, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL &
SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL. COUNSEL)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.135/2016 (S.C.NO.50/2017) REGISTERED BY DHARWAD
URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD, PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND
CURRENTLY UNDER ALLEGED FURTHER INVESTIGATION BY THE
RESPONDENT AS MATTER BEARING FIR NO.RC.17(S)/2019/
2
CBI/ACB/BLR ON THE FILE OF LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-82) WHEREIN THE
PETITIONER HEREIN IS NOT ARRAIGNED AS ADDITIONAL
ACCUSED NO.15 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 143,
147, 148, 120B, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 25 R/W 3, 5,
8 AND 29 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.04.2021 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.15 has filed this successive bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of regular bail in Crime No.135/2016 currently investigated by the CBI in FIR No.RC.17(S)/2019/ CBI/ACB/BLR, dated 24.09.2019, earlier pending on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in SC No.50/2017 and presently pending on the file of the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-82), the Special Court constituted for trying MLA and MP cases.
2. Heard the arguments of Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.V. Raju, learned ASG for the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
3
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.06.2016, on the complaint of one Mallavva, wife of the deceased Yogishgouda Goudar, the Sub-Urban Police, Dharwad registered a case. It is alleged that her husband has been murdered by some unknown persons, a case in Crime No.135/2016 came to be registered for the offence under Section 302 of IPC against unknown persons. During the investigation on 16.06.2016, the accused Nos.1 to 6 said to have surrendered before the Police and the Police after investigation filed the charge sheet. Subsequently, the brother of the deceased and the mother of the deceased namely, Thungamma and Gurunatha Gouda respectively filed writ petitions before this Court in WP Nos.5813-14/2017 praying this Court to direct the CBI to undertake the investigation of this case by making the petitioner as respondent No.10. The same came to be rejected and the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the same. Subsequently, during the trial, the younger brother of the deceased filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. impleading the 4 present petitioner as additional accused, which also came to be rejected. On 06.09.2019, the State Government decided to handover the investigation to the CBI.
Accordingly, the CBI on 24.09.2020 registered a case in RC.17(S)/2019/CBI/ACB/BLR against accused No.1 to 6 and other unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 120B, 201 R/W 149 of IPC and Section 25 read with Sections 3, 5, 8 and 29 of the Indian Arms Act and took up further investigation. The power was conferred to the CBI to investigate into the matter. During the investigation, the CBI arrested accused Nos.7 to 14 and they have been produced before the Court and an additional charge sheet also came to be filed. Further, the CBI got issued a notice to the petitioner to appear before them for interrogation on 05.11.2020. During the interrogation, it was revealed about the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the murder of the deceased. Hence, the CBI arrested the petitioner and got remanded to judicial custody. He moved a bail petition before the Sessions 5 Judge, Dhaward, which came to be rejected. Subsequently, he moved the High Court at Dharwad Bench for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., by filing Crl.P.No.101595/2020 which came to be rejected. Now, the petitioner has come up with fresh grounds and amongst various other grounds as the charge sheet has already been filed.
In the meanwhile, it appears that on the request made by the petitioner, the case has been transferred from CBI Court, Dharwad to Special Court for trying the offences alleged against the MLA and MP at Bengaluru. Accordingly, the case was transferred to Special Court, Bengaluru and again the petitioner filed an application for bail, which came to be rejected. It is also found in the record that on 30.01.2021, the CBI, on completing the investigation against this petitioner and accused Nos.16 and 17 filed the charge sheet.
4. Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that while deciding the matter, this Court on the earlier occasion has 6 categorically held at paragraph-22 of the order that the investigation is still under progress and CBI is yet to record the statement of some of the witnesses and file the charge sheet and in order to give full support to the investigating officer for independent investigation without being influenced by any person to file the charge sheet. Therefore, the bail petition came to be rejected until filing of the charge sheet. Now, the learned counsel submits that the charge sheet has already been filed on 30.01.20 and the presence of the petitioner may not be required for any further investigation. The statements were recorded by the CBI during their investigation under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the statements were not made available to learned counsel for the petitioner or the petitioner at the time of arguing the matter during the pendency of investigation. Therefore, the learned counsel had no option to demonstrate the statement of the witnesses made before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
7
5. Learned senior counsel further submits that one Nyamegowda who is personal Secretary of the petitioner when he was working as Minister, he is said to have accompanied accused No.15 where accused No.1 said to have met accused No.15 at Sankey Road, Bengaluru in midnight, but the said Nyamegowda is neither made as accused nor as witness and as per the statement, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. The statement of that witness is very vital and helpful to the case of the petitioner. The prosecution even though tried to project the case against the petitioner, but the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is nothing but a repetition of the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of this witness.
6. Learned counsel further contended that even as per the arguments addressed by learned ASG that accused Nos.1 to 6 have actually surrendered before the Police, they are not the assailants but accused Nos.7 to 14 are the real 8 assailants, but in the Investigating report at page Nos.168 and 169 stated that accused Nos.1 to 6 also present along with accused Nos.7 to 14. This goes to show that there is contradiction in the statement made under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Learned senior counsel has contended that as per ASG that by looking to the charges leveled against petitioner in respect of motive aspect, the motive brought by the prosecution that the agreement entered into between accused No.1 along with one Nagaraj, it was not materialized even though he paid Rs.6,00,000/- and accused No.1 wanted to purchase adjacent land of 9 acres belonging to the deceased, which he was refused to sell the same to accused No.1. Therefore, accused No.1 with accused Nos.2 to 6 committed the murder, but that motive in the earlier charge- sheet was not disturbed and it cannot be said that it is a false motive projected by the accused. Even otherwise, the fresh motive projected by the prosecution is that there was verbal altercation between accused No.15 and the deceased during the Zilla Panchayat meeting held on 22.04.2016 cannot be a ground for committing the murder. As per the CBI report, 9 accused No.1 contacted with the petitioner and also through his wife's mobile phone during January to March, which reveals that they are family members. Merely there were phone calls exchanged between them that itself is not a ground to show that motive was created by the accused petitioner for misleading the Police. Even otherwise, the fresh motive projected by the CBI that there was altercation as per the statement of the brother of the deceased when the deceased was a growing political leader and accused that he may be an obstacle to his political career. Therefore, he was trying to eliminate the deceased. Except the statement of the brother of the deceased, there is no witness to support the case of the prosecution.
7. Learned senior counsel has further contended that by looking to the entire statement, there is no clinching evidence or material placed on record to show that the accused petitioner involved with accused Nos.1 to 14 in the commission of the offence. The Police also said to have recovered a gun which has nothing to do with the offence 10 committed as there is no gun shot in this case. Learned senior counsel submits that an unsuccessful attempt of murder is said to have made on 07.06.2016 also has no consequence and regarding conspiracy of meeting of minds pre-offence and not after the offence. Accused No.1 never met accused No.15 prior to commission of the offence even if he met after the commission of the offence that cannot be a ground that he has conspired with accused No.15 for committing the murder. Therefore, conspiracy cannot be acceptable as an evidence.
8. Learned Senior counsel submits that the wife of the deceased also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Such being the case, there is no material against this accused for holding that he is involved in the commission of the offence and hence, prayed for granting bail and contended that there is fresh ground for considering the bail petition. He contended that the petitioner is a permanent resident and he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. The investigation though 11 filed charge sheet, still the Police stated further charge sheet will be filed and there is no assurance when the trial may start in the near future. Therefore, prayed for granting bail. The presence of the petitioner is only required to know whether he will take up the trial or abscond from the case. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. On the other hand, the deceased is having 25 criminal cases against him and three murder case and he is a rowdy sheeter. Learned Senior counsel submits that the statement of the witnesses CWs.41 to 43 recorded by the CBI during their further investigation will not constitute motive for commission of the offence. Learned Senior counsel also submits that the accused No.7 was also granted bail by the Sessions Judge which is undisturbed. Accused Nos.1 to 6 have been granted bail by the trial Court. Hence, prayed for granting bail.
9. Per contra, learned ASG countered the arguments addressed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and contended that there is no fresh ground made out by the 12 petitioner in the present successive petition in order to consider the bail petition. All the averments made by the petitioner and the grounds have been dealt with by this Court in the earlier order. Mere filing of the charge sheet is not fresh ground to the petitioner to approach the Court for granting of bail. The statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. clearly demonstrate the involvement of accused petitioner especially the statement of the brother of the accused Vijay Kulkarni who has categorically stated that accused No.1 came and met his brother and accused No.15 at Sankey Road and in a car and went out. Thereafter, on the next day, accused No.1 went and surrendered before the Police. Another witness, the accused No.16 also who is the uncle of accused No.15 was found along with accused No.15 and also arrested and charge sheet has been filed. There is a CC Tv footage showing the involvement of accused Nos.7 to 14. The local police ignored the CC Tv footage and the petitioner being the in-charge Minister of the District and sitting MLA of Dharwad. He has made accused Nos.1 to 6 as culprits but accused Nos.7 to 14 are the real assailants who committed 13 the murder. The motive informed by accused Nos.1 to 6 to the Police regarding agreement of sale which depicts that an agreement of sale entered into between Nagaraj and accused No.1. In fact there is altercation between the petitioner and the deceased, on 22.04.2016 at Zilla Panchayat meeting chaired by the petitioner, there was heated verbal altercation and thereafter the statement of the witness, the brother of the deceased reveals that the accused also threatened that if the deceased allowed to grow, definitely one day he will become the leader of Dharwad. Therefore, he conspired with accused No.1 to eliminate the deceased and accused No.1 engaged accused Nos.7 to 14 at the request of accused No.15, they accompanied and stayed in the resort at Dandeli and thereafter, they also stayed in a hotel at Hubbali. They attempted to commit murder of the deceased but unsuccessful on 07.06.2016. Accused No.16 gave a gun to other accused persons for using a gun if required. There were frequent phone calls between accused Nos.1 and 15 through his phone and his wife's phone. After the commission of the murder by accused Nos.7 to 14, they fled 14 away then accused No.1 came to Bengaluru by a private taxi and met accused No.15 at Sankey road and accused No.15 though is a Minister having official car, he has met accused No.1 on the road in a private car in the midnight and thereafter accused No.1 went and surrendered before the Police along with accused Nos.2 to 6. Accused No.15 also made a false Tour Programme showing that he is going to Delhi for the purpose of official meeting. In fact, he has went to Delhi for one day and he came back and stayed in Private Hotel at Bengaluru where the accused contacted him, which reveals that the accused conspired with other accused to eliminate the deceased in order to eliminate political enemy growing in the city. The statement of the witnesses were clear to show that the involvement of the accused-petitioner in the commission of the murder of the deceased. The statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. of CWs.26, 22, 55, 54, 24, 33, 53 and 51 clearly shows the circumstances connecting the accused with the crime. Learned ASG also contended that if the petitioner is granted bail, the possibility 15 of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution witnesses is not ruled out.
10. Learned ASG submits that the accused from the beginning has diverted the case of the prosecution by surrendering accused Nos.1 to 6 as they are the real culprits and thereafter, the Investigating Officer also influenced, he has made to tamper the prosecution witnesses along with the Police constable and a Police Inspector and he also called the advocates for tampering the witnesses. The wife of the deceased was also tampered by giving Rs.20.00 lakhs and a post in Congress party. The accused also by influence changed the public prosecutor and brought in another public prosecutor for conducting the case and all the eyewitnesses were tampered by this witness in his presence by paying money and taking them to Goa. Therefore, merely the petitioner is permanent resident is not a ground for granting bail. If he is granted bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and hamper the trial. Hence, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
16
11. I have heard the arguments of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the CBI and also perused the documents produced by both sides. This Court has already rejected the bail petition of this Petitioner on 21.1.2021, just nine days prior to the filing of the charge sheet.
12. The learned Senior Counsel argued mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that while rejecting the bail petition, the investigation was under progress and the charge sheet was yet to file. Now, the investigation is completed, charge sheet already filed against this petitioner and the presence of the petitioner may not be required for the purpose of any investigation. Therefore, the petitioner be entitled for bail on this ground.
13. Another ground urged by the learned Senior counsel is that while arguing the matter before this court in the previous bail petition the learned counsel who has appeared for the petitioner was not made available any statements 17 made by the witnesses before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the learned counsel was not able to demonstrate those statements while arguing the matter on the earlier occasion. Presently, the statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. were available before the Trial Court but those documents were not furnished to the counsel for the petitioner. At the stage of arguments, the copies of the statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. had been served to the learned counsel of the petitioner.
14. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner after verifying the statements had contended that the Personal Secretary of the petitioner one Somashekar Nyama Gouda neither made as an accused nor as witness in the charge sheet, the statement of the brother of the petitioner was recorded by the CBI on 6.11.2020 after arresting the petitioner and therefore, those statements cannot be acceptable one. The statement of the Advocates also does not reveal anything against the accused for tampering of any 18 of the witness therefore it was contended that the petitioner had made out new and fresh ground for granting bail.
15. Per contra, the learned Special counsel for CBI has contended that there are no fresh grounds made out by the petitioner for granting bail. This Court has already considered all the grounds including the statement of the witnesses under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. while rejecting the earlier bail petition. The learned counsel also contended that merely filing the charge sheet cannot be considered as a fresh ground for the petitioner for granting bail. On the other hand, once the charge sheet is filed, the case of the prosecution is further strengthened by the charge sheet. Hence, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
16. Upon hearing the rival contentions of both sides, the point that arises for my consideration:
i. Whether mere filing of the charge sheet is said to be a fresh ground for granting bail to the petitioner?19
ii. Whether the petitioner made out any fresh or new grounds for granting bail?
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda and Another v. State of Karnataka and another reported in (2017) 5 Supreme Court cases 406 has considered the similar circumstances in respect of filing of charge sheet as a fresh ground or not. Para 12 reads as under:
"On perusal of the order passed by the learned trial judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstances. Needless to say, filing of the charge sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge sheet establishes after due investigation the investigating agency having found materials has placed charge sheet for the trial of the accused persons"20
18. In view of the above said principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and on perusal of the case in hand, the earlier bail petition came to be rejected on 21.1.2021 and the charge sheet came to be filed on 31.1.2021 just nine days prior to the filing of the charge sheet. This Court while considering the bail petition and after perusal of the entire materials on record including statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. made by the witnesses rejected the bail petition. Therefore, I am of the view merely filing of the charge sheet will not be considered as changed circumstances for granting bail to this petitioner. Hence, the grounds urged by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner for granting bail merely on the ground of filing charge sheet cannot be acceptable. Therefore, on that ground the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
19. Another ground urged by the learned Senior counsel is that the statement of the witness is made under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein, the then Personal Secretary of the 21 petitioner one Somashekar Nyama Gouda is neither made as an accused nor as a witness and his statement not forming as part of the charge sheet.
20. A copy of the statement was also summoned to the Court and the copy of the same also furnished to the petitioner's counsel and on perusal of the said statement, of course the said person except admitting he was Personal Secretary, he has not supported the prosecution case. However, merely Somashekar Nyama Gouda is not made as an accused or cited as witness that itself is not a ground for granting bail to the petitioner. For the reasons that, it is the prerogative of the Investigating Officer for citing any of the person as the witness if he supports the case of the prosecution and the Investigating Officer also having the liberty to collect any material and showing the said person as accused in the additional charge sheet. Even otherwise if any material found by the prosecution during the trial and the said person is necessary then he can be examined as witness by exercising power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The trial Court 22 also empowers to add said person as an additional accused as per Section 319 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the statement of the Somashekar Nyama Gouda will not be helpful for the petitioner.
21. As regards to another ground that statement of Vijay Kulkarni, brother of the petitioner, has recorded by the Investigating Officer on 6.11.2020 after arrest of the petitioner. In this regard admittedly the petitioner was arrested on 5.11.2020 and statement of Vijay Kulkarni has been recorded on 6.11.2020, a day after arresting the petitioner. The statement of the witness may be recorded after gathering information from the petitioner on the confession statement, but merely the statement of the witness recorded subsequent to the arrest of the petitioner will not take away the veracity of the witness and on that ground, the statement of the witness cannot be disbelieved prior to the trial. This witness also given statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, wherein he has categorically stated that on 15.6.2016, accused No.1- 23 Basavaraja Muthagi met his brother accused No.15 in the midnight at Sankey Tankey Road and at that time, accused No.16 and himself came in a private car from Mourya Hotel to Sankey Tank Road. The statement of this witness and the CDR report and mobile tower of the petitioner and accused No.1 appeared to be in the same place, which confirms meeting of accused No.1 and this petitioner in the midnight and the presence of accused No.16 with accused No.15 along with this witness. Though this witness may not support the prosecution case in the trial as he is the brother of the accused, but his statement cannot be disbelieved at this stage regarding meeting of accused No.1 and accused No.15 on the night of incident day.
22. The learned Senior counsel had already contented that the conspiracy must be prior to the commission of the offence and the meeting of the accused after completion of the offence cannot be considered as conspiracy. The contention of the learned Senior counsel cannot be accepted since accused No.1 and this petitioner were continuously in 24 touch through mobile phone and there were hundreds of calls made between them and were all prior to the incident. After commission of the murder, accused No.1 came in a private Taxi of CW34 one Prakash Goud from Chitradurga to Bangalore and met the petitioner in the midnight at Sankey Tankey Road and went back on the same night and the very next day, accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 6 were surrendered before the Police by making confession statement by admitting that they have committed murder of Yogishgouda Goudar that on the false motive of land deal between accused No.1 and Nagaraj.
23. This Court already considered all the grounds urged by the petitioner including statements of the witnesses under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by summoning them to the Court.
24. On perusal of statements of CW22-Anand, CW23- Dr. Dattatreya and CW.26-Vinayak Binjiyavara under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., where it reveal that they are eyewitnesses to the incident and they say the commission of murder by the accused persons and later they have received the summons 25 and they asked to meet at Milk Dairy of the petitioner, where accused No.1 and this petitioner given threat to them not to give evidence. These witnesses were also taken to Goa and later met the Advocates at Dharwad and tutored them, Therefore, they gave evidence in fear.
25. The statement of CW55, who is the brother of the accused reveals the meeting of accused No.1 and the petitioner at Bangalore in the midnight. The statement of CW54-Nataraj Sirji Desai reveals that, at the instance of the witness, two days prior to the witness, he has communicated to accused No.1 to conclude the work and later he has made to fix the meeting of petitioner and accused No.1 on 15/16th June 2016. The statement of CW34-Prakash Gouda has stated that accused No.1-Basavaraj Mutagi traveled in his taxi from Chitradurga to Bangalore Sankey Tankey and later accused No.1 returned to Chitradurga, but he has got drop at NICE Road. CW33-Suresh, who is also driver, has stated that on 15.6.2016, accused No.1 asked the witness to take him to Bangalore. After reaching Bangalore Sankey Tank, another 26 white car came, accused No.1 went and sat in the said car for some time and returned. The statements reveal that accused No.1 came to Bangalore and met the petitioner and thereafter, he has surrendered before the Police.
26. The statement of CW53-Srivatsa reveals that he is a civil contractor working in the Dairy of the petitioner and ten days prior to the statement, the petitioner called him and informed to give rupees 6 lakhs to accused No.1 and he has paid the same. The statement of one Nataraj Maki Goudar that he is a developer and acquainted with the petitioner in May 2016 and the petitioner called him to his Diary, at that time, accused No.1 was also present. The statement of CW51- Roopendra Rao reveals that at the request of the petitioner, he has arranged the stay of accused No.1 and others at Hornbil Resort at Dandeli.
27. Statement of CW70-Shivananda Karigara reveals that he is the relative of the wife of the accused and he was informed that Suresh Gouda and Nagaraj were trying to bring the wife of the deceased to the Congress Party. Suresh Gouda asked 27 him to bring the wife of the accused to the Dairy of the petitioner and then, he met the petitioner and the wife of the deceased. The accused-petitioner gave rupees 20 lakhs to the wife of the deceased and later, at the instruction of the Advocate, she gave evidence.
28. The statements of Advocates-Ashok Sindhe, Vijay Shali, and Janumati reveal that they met the witness in the Dairy of the petitioner. The statement of one Mahesh Shetty reveals that meeting took place in his residence where the petitioner and the brother of the deceased met for compromise and to settle the dispute.
29. On perusal of the material on record which clearly reveals from the very beginning the petitioner hatched conspiracy to eliminate the deceased and met accused No.1 and through him engaged accused Nos.7 to 14 for committing the murder. Accused Nos.7 to 14 stayed in Hornbill Resort at Dandeli, and were accommodated at the request of this petitioner and subsequently, the assailants 28 came to Hubbali stayed in a Hotel and after committing the murder, they fled away.
30. Subsequently, accused No.1 came to Bangalore met this petitioner at Sankey Tank on Road. Even though the petitioner was a Minister, he was provided with an official quarter at Bangalore, but on the relevant day, he had stayed in a private Hotel at Mourya and apart from that, in order to plead alibi, he has prepared false official tour program to Delhi to show that he was in Delhi for official meeting from 12th June to 20th June 2016. In fact, he left to Delhi on 12th June 2016, but returned to Bangalore the very next day and stayed in private hotel and later, on the day of incident, he met accused No.1 on the road by going in a private car. The mobile tower and the CDR reveals the meeting of the petitioner and the same is confirmed by the statements of the brother of the petitioner and two drivers.
31. After meeting of this petitioner, accused No.1 went back to Dharwad and surrendered before the Police along with accused Nos.2 to 6 and diverted the Police by giving false 29 confessional statement, false motive and mislead the Police. Later, this Petitioner tried to settle the dispute with the brother of the deceased and was failed, but was successful in tampering the wife of the deceased by giving rupees 20 lakhs and a post in Congress Party.
32. Petitioner gave rupees 6 Lakhs to accused No.1 through CW53-Srivatsa and eyewitnesses were tampered by this witness by taking them to Goa and were brought back to his Milk Dairy and in the presence of the Police Constable and Advocates, he has threatened eyewitnesses not to give evidence in favour of the prosecution.
33. The investigation also reveals that, the petitioner by using his influence as District In-charge Minister interfered with the investigation. He has paid rupees 2 lakh to the Investigating Officer for tampering the witnesses and to file false charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6 and also not to investigate the matter effectively.
30
34. This accused also had changed the Public Prosecutor in the trial Court by using his influence and trying to get influence for accused Nos.1 to 6. The entire records reveal the involvement of the petitioner, his active participation in hatching conspiracy in order to eliminate the political enemy which is nothing but a political murder and the petitioner is the beneficiary as the deceased was BJP growing leader and political enemy.
35. Of course, this Court fully aware about the guidelines and the principles regarding granting and rejecting the bail. The offences are under Section 302 read with Section 120B of IPC, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The Court is required to consider and grant bail under Section 302, even if there is no prima-facie material on record, the gravity of the offence and the severity of the punishment, character, behavior and standing of the accused, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with. If there is no such apprehension in the mind of the Court, then the Court can grant bail. By looking into 31 the behavior of the petitioner, tampering of the witnesses, influencing the Police officer, changing the Public Prosecutor, diverting the Police and investigation and surrendering some other persons as culprits, threatening the wife of the deceased by paying rupees 20 lakhs and assuring her a post in Congress Party.
36. The entire documents produced by the CBI reveals that the petitioner was involved in commission of pre-planned cold blooded murder of the deceased Yogishgouda Goudar with the help of his henchmen with political power and influence. If he is released on bail, he will certainly tamper with all the witnesses and obstruct the fair trial against him. Therefore, he is not deserved to be enlarged on bail.
37. Hence, the successive bail petition of the petitioner- accused No.15 filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE mv