Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2008
IN THE HIGH couaw 0? xARHAmAKA cxncuiw Bfififlfi AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE ;2"*:mx OF fiQVEMBEfi'éG§8 g 8EF0RE«.? -:T THE HON'BLE MR, JU$$ICE ARAL:-NAGARA§,L CRIMINAL PE?iTION N©§?3S9}266é BETWEEN 1 vENKA$£sH ,_ . :, S/O.MARRDEVEPEA CHURI .
26 yEAgg- ~_ :»* " "."-W;
0¢c:As§:cuL:g*g :hTV 2 NAGARAJ @,NAGAP9A 'a. . , S/O.YALLAEPA GUDAD:NNI. v_ PQE:2G yaaas; "-'. 8?"
occ: STUDENT_"
3 pmwwu @ MENJUNHEE'-* S,' Ka=§1'5:i,ya§>;3a <3zi<:~1a<:1_;i_;fa=:1i RSEi'22"YEfiRS} fiC;'STUDENTfz 41 ,ARAMESHA"7 . -9 *,"S:0. MARUTfiE.ARASHINGUDI, *_AGE: 25 yggas, '*~ccc£»AGR1cuLTuRE
-- ;_"ALL ARE R/0% KANAVI HONNAPUR ~T§L$K_&<D1sT: DHARWAD. . . PETITIONERS {BY SRI K.L. PATEL, REV.) r*-{\/"'d RNB THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DHARWAD RURAL 9.3.
REP. my STATE PUBLlC PROSECUTOR, H"-, x_- -I BHARWAQ. . . _m~_ ;' "R£§EONDgNT' (BY SRI P.H. GOIKHINQI; HcGP,) .._ THIS CRL. PETITION is EELED U/SL439 OF"CR PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE :EsTITIowERs wen "BAIL -To ENLARGE Tea PETITIONERS/RGCUSED ow BAIL IN DARWRD RURAL Baa CRIME JKL 24b£2&Q7 mIcH_ ms CHARGE SHEETED FOR OFFENSES 9UNIsHAeLE_U/3.34:, 302 R/W. 34 0? :96 (IN s.C; No 4afe8 ex $HE FILE 05 Tea FAST 09 THE FAST coURT_Nd;:;_eHAgwge.) THIS c3IMI$AI§_9$mf?Io®1fcQMINc; ON FUR ORDERS TRIS QAy;.jfig CGURT Péssie THE FOLLGWlNG:
The '§9titiQD§I fiNOS.l to 4 herein who are .g respectively acggsed Nos.l to 4 in Crime No.24U/G7 ef bhaified Rural Police Station, have sought for 'béII ufide:*sg¢t:on 439 of Cr.PC. '.I2...$§I5 bail petition is eeriously opposed by 'xthe preeecution by filing' written. Qbjections to
3. Heard the arguments of Sri K.L. Patii, I.learned Counsel for the petitioners--accused and % 3 Sri ?.H. Gotkhindi, learned HCGP, and perueeo the complaint and also the statements of witneeeeg;ghd other material on recopd produced hy the learned g HCGP.
4. The case of the prosechtion ae"aliegedtin;
the complaint dated l9;1éL2007",fiiedh by one Shankappa Goiappa Doeoamani that on the haeis of the information qiVeh_7to;;hi@ hone Parashuram Kareppa Devappa ¢W--lO ie as u§dér{7C;'
(a) At,'---;;r§._g1V8.12.2007 when the deoeeeedgahoithe'eeiefearashuram were retnrnihq {roe a Gegihel village to their viliage. haeeiythfiahavi Honnapur, on the motor 'eyc1é_"e::§en by the deceased V Baeaveraj'"§eeVa§pahavar. At that time hh°- the isaioa Pareehurant was sitting on the "--f;yC:].e as piliion rider. When "*th$y hoame; near Bekkihekere, some three strahgere stopped the said Motor cycie ha and . restrained theme from. proceeding hiferther. Two of the said three persons hfiere holding long weapons and the third f "f"?
~ohe was held ea wooden club. When the deceased questioned the said three persons as to who they were, they said the deceased that he has to be murdered {'xf~\~""' 4 and while saying so, one of the said three said persons heééeng the deceasedro and the other two persons staxted hittingflfi* him with the said weapons". J uuh
(b) On seeing the saidi 1fi§iaéni;= then"
said Parashuram escaped ftomi thee said: > persons and went to --theA house. of" the"
complainant Shankarappa and infosmed him that the deceaseoK.was:i§ein§a_assahited with deadly weapons by thfee strangers at the said 4it1ace:W"f1 fwhexeafter, the comglainantv ens'.theh:saidfi§afashuraa: and others dent to théisaiq figéce and found thati the incest. Cfcle-- belonging to the deceaseg"hea§inqcRe§hf No.KAm25 9886 was found mag .a'ridA'~i._£,he7y could not find the deceased nearby the said place. On the Vinefit nothing i.e. on 19.12.2007, the dead '1.hody efi the deceased was found thrown in theh iafia7' being cultivated by one Baiechahflra churi.
i"ohe3,_§hereafter, the complainant lodged his said iifcompiaint befoxe the SH0 of the said Police i=__Station against some four unknown accused persons i*ffo:» having caused the adeath oft the deceased by "assauiting him with deadly weapons. ' After ,.._.f\"'------»--
5compietion of the investigation, the said police submitted charge sheet against the present_ petitioner Nos.l to 4 for the offence "under a Section 302 r/w. Sec.34 IPC and;;.dQrine* investigation, these petitioners~ came yifiw' bee arrested.
6. Sri K.L. Patil, learned cou'n_sé.»1f.'.= fer "the petitioner strongly contended that absolateiy no material is placed on reeord by the prosecution to connect all or any" of"wthesepipetitifiperswaccused with the eommittingt of penrdertjofwythe deceased Basavaraj inasmnchiJas"pthep eohpiaint was filed against some fonrinnkniwnhpetsons and no material is placed to estabiishtnat these petitioners were identifiied Eby«.thedisaiei*Parashuram or as the assaiiants who actnaiiy assaulted the deceased and thereby inflicted tatal wounds on his person which resniteddinihiszdeatnri He further submitted that in View at eieardaverment in the complaint that ifthe said 7Parashnran5 who actually' witnessed the dincident'tof5:restraint of the deoeased by some "tebee"strangets and commencement of assault on the h deceased by them, was not knowing the said persons n:d«l"either by name or by their physical features and >"*,tnerefore, there is no prima facie case made out eW_pby"the prosecution against these petitioners for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
T"(\"-F2' 7 complaint that the said Parashuram on the basis of whose infermation he lodged complaint ifias not knowing the assailants on the deceasefi aed there is no further material on record to shew that he identified these accused during investigation'ash the said assailants. Since _there 'is: tea énpugh material to establish the isentity of ali or-any of the petitioners as 'tfie_vpérs§né fiho actually assaulted the deceased on fihemsaid flete, time and place and therebf"infiiete§V@%y his person fatal wounds which. ultimately ggésuifiéa' in death, it Cannot be sets that these petitioners were solely responsiblefforhmurfierinqRtheiseceased.
:§0,-- flFn:ther;jM_the averments of these petitioners that théY are permanently residing at the addresses shown in the bail petition are not disputed and .therefore, the apprehensions or the iprossestion that they may Hnsuse the liberty it "_the§'are"$rsnted bail, may be met with by imposing seitaple conditions. Besides this, investigation has alrsssy been completed and the charge sheet is ll* submitted and therefore, there wesld be no lfioccasion for these petitioners~accused ix) tamper ' with the presecution evidence.
11. Having regard to the iacts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the r""""'\..r'-\""~f"' 8 evidence collected by the Investigation Qftieet during inveetigatien against the petitiegefegde accused, I am of the considered View that ends of~ justice would be met with if theee petitioners arefi granted bail as prayed ior.
For the reasons afofeeaid, infihei flfiresent petition is allowed. gvijhe ,.p'es;}:'i:ib:;ei: '§;I'oAs.~i to 4 herein who are reepecti$el§FaeeueediNoe.1 te 4 in Cxime No.24GfU? of Dhggwaj Resaiaéeiiee Station, ehaii be enlaifiéfia oh i%é1:dd6a-iéacn of them furnishing a "gain of es.4o,eo0/---- along with -------- «one! au;etyf,fer«,the likeeum. to the eatisfactien__--ef*_ the 4 learned Sessions Judge, Dharwad suefiect to tee cenditions that:
(ivyi i"ti'1eyV" "=sI__1__a.}.i not directiy or in iiinditectiy' threaten the V'.iproeeeution witnesses; {ii} "tthey' shall give their attendance V'eefere the SHO of the said ?oiiee statien once in a Eortnight preferrabiy on every alternative Monday between 10.00 am and 5.08 pm till the conclusion of the trial.
9 A copy of this order shall be ,---~C"'." amt' wow ta 52""
farthwith to the said Ccmrt,r\for inforz:2aT;3_:on"."--_ :'~._ fli. ,--..f'\a--m.
Van 91*