Karnataka High Court
Sri. Nadagurthi Venkatesh Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRL. P. NO. 102615/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI NADAGURTHI VENKATESH SHETTY,
S/O NARAYANA SHETTY, AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O: MARIYAMMANAHALLI
VILLAGE, TAL: HOSAPET, DIST: BALLARI.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINAND A PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI
POLICE STATION, NOW REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.
- RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, GOVT. PLEADER)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CRIME NO. 163/2017 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 302, 302, 115 AND 120(B) R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC
BY HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION & ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This bail petition is filed by the petitioner- accused No.4 in Crime No. 163/2017 of Hagaribommanahalli Police registered for the offences punishable u/S 302, 301, 115 and 120(B) r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. Since from the date of arrest the petitioner herein is in judicial custody and hence praying for enlarging him on regular bail amongst other grounds urged therein.
2.Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as under:
On 29.08.2017 a complaint was filed by the complainant before the Police alleging that accused 1 to 3, who are said to be residing with the deceased Neelamma in the same house. Prior to six months from the date of complaint, the deceased had availed a loan of Rs.2,75,000/- in Hampapattana Gramin Bank by mortgaging her land measuring four acres. The amount was credited to the account of Neelamma. Laxman (accused No.1) had withdrawn a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from ATM machine 3 without the knowledge of the deceased. When the deceased had enquired about the same with Laxman, he replied that, as per the instructions of his sister Narasamma (accused No.3) he had withdrawn the amount and that he would return the amount later, for which, his sister Narasamma had also agreed. Two months prior to the incident, the accused Nos.1 to 3 had asked the deceased to transfer the said land in the name of Narasamma, for which the deceased did not agree. On the said issue there was some quarrel between the accused 1 to 3 and the deceased.
3. On 28.08.2017 at about 6.30 p.m. when the complainant along with other villagers were near the Temple of the village, the deceased came there and informed them that the accused 1 to 3 are forcing to transfer the land in favour of Narasamma and if not they are threatening to kill her, and requested them to give them advise. Upon her request, the complainant they have pacified the issue. However, on the same day at about 11.00 p.m. there was 4 some noise in the house of Neelamma and when they went near the house of Neelamma, they saw that the accused 1 to 3 were beating Neelamma and also quarrelling with her. Since at that time there was drizzling of rain, he returned home. However, on 29.08.2017 at about 6.30 a.m. he heard the screaming voice of Ningappa, son of Neelamma and hence he rushed to her house and saw that Neelamma was lying on the ground. In order to grab her four acres of land, the accused 1 to 3 hatched plan and eliminate the deceased with means of rope and killed her by strangulating her neck. On this complaint, the case was registered by the Police against the accused. On the voluntary statement of accused 2 and 3, that the accused No.4 has been arrayed in the alleged crime.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner so also the learned Govt. Pleader for the State and perused the records.
5
5. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No4, during the course of his arguments has contended that, relating to the case in Crime No. 163/2017 on the filing of the complaint by the complainant, the case was registered only against the accused nos.1 to 3, who are none other than the relatives of the deceased. But, there was no role made by the petitioner herein to commit murder of the victim. Neither his name finds place in the complaint as well as the FIR recorded by the Police. But, on the basis of voluntary statement given by the accused nos.1 to 3, the name of this petitioner has been roped in the alleged crime alleging that he has also participated in the crime, in order, though there is no direct overt attributed against him in causing the death of the victim. The accused is in judicial custody from the date of his arrest. As the accused is the only source in the family to eke out the livelihood of the dependents and if the accused is kept behind the bar for a longer period, the family consisting of wife, children and old aged parents would be ruined in the society. On all these 6 grounds the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail to him. Hence, sought for consideration of the bail petition.
6. On the other hand, learned Govt. Pleader contended that upon the averments made in the complaint, initially the case in Crime No. 163/2017 came to be registered against the accused nos.1 to 3. The petitioner herein being the friend of accused No.1 was involved in hatching a plan for eliminating the victim in order to grab the land but since she did not agree for transfer of said land, which stood in her name. Moreover, the deceased had approached the elderly person regarding picking up quarrel by the accused in connection with trans of land. Hence, learned Govt. Pleader submitted that prima facie materials are available against the petitioner herein. Further, if the accused is supposed to be released on bail, he would certainly come in the way of the prosecution 7 and the same shall not be ruled out. Hence sought for dismissal of the petition, as he does not deserve for bail.
7. On perusal of the above it reveals that, upon filing of the complaint by the complainant, initially the case in Crime No.163/2017 came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to
3. However, on the basis of the voluntary statement given by the accused nos.2 and 3, the petitioner herein has been roped in the alleged crime as accused No.4. The same is borne out from the remand report. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the accused in order to grab four acres of land, the accused nos.1 to 3 were hatching plan to eliminate the accused, but there is no material which finds place either in the FIR or in the complaint disclosing the name of the petitioner herein. Further, the case is still under investigation by the Investigating Officer by recording the statement of witnesses and so also securing material documents regarding the involvement of the petitioner herein in committing the alleged offences. The material collected by 8 the Investigating Officer, at this stage, cannot be said that they are enough for declining the relief of bail as sought for by the petitioner herein.
8. Whereas the learned Govt. Pleader submitted that, if the petitioner herein is released on bail certainly he would come in the way of the prosecution. The apprehension of the learned Govt. Pleader can very well be met with by imposing suitable conditions. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner-accused No.4 is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, I pass the following order.
ORDER Bail petition filed by the petitioner- accused No.4 u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed subject to the following conditions.
1) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a likesum surety to the 9 satisfaction of the learned Civil Judge & JMFC, Hagaribommanahalli, where the case in Crime No. 163/2017 is pending;
2) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation;
3) The petitioner shall not tamper or hamper the case of the prosecution;
4) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a fortnight as per the English Monthly Calendar before the concerned SHO between 10 am and 5 pm for a period of three months;
5) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
SD/-
JUDGE bvv