Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjun vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201257/2021
BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUN
S/O SAYABANNA KHAIRAT
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O TAMBA, TQ. INDI
DIST. VIJAYPUR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.S.MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH VIJAYAPUR RURAL P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE
HIGH COURT BUILDING
KALABURAGI-585103
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM
ON BAIL IN VIJAYPUR RURAL POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.51/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 365, 143, 147, 120(B), 201, 302 R/W
2
SECTION 149 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE IV-ADDITIONAL CIVIL
AND JMFC-III, VIJAYAPUR, IN C.C.NO.6622/2021 ON SUCH
TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO
IMPOSE UPON HIM.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., by accused No.1 seeking regular bail in Crime No.51/2021 of Vijaypur Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 143, 147, 120(B), 201, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner and the deceased-Iranna Bhimashya Gotyal are relatives. The petitioner was taking care of the land of the deceased when the deceased was out of State and on his return, the deceased took the possession of the property from the 3 petitioner. Hence, the petitioner was having grudge against the deceased and the petitioner conspired with other accused to eliminate the deceased and gave supari for Rs.5,00,000/- to take away the life of the deceased. Accordingly, the other accused persons planned, kidnapped the deceased and committed murder by strangulating him. Hence, the complaint was filed and the case was registered. The police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that accused Nos.2 to 7 have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in different criminal petitions and the allegation against those accused persons is that they have committed the murder of the deceased. Except the allegation that the petitioner gave supari to the other accused persons to kill the deceased, no other allegation is made and there is nothing on record. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled for bail. 4
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the petitioner is the mastermind behind the crime and he was having motive to eliminate the deceased. The Investigating Officer has collected the material which shows that there were telephonic conversations between the petitioner and other accused persons during the time of committing the crime. Hence, there are sufficient material against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.
6. In reply to the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that except the allegation of giving supari, no recovery is made at the instance of the petitioner. The case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government 5 Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and on perusal of the material on record, it is evident that initially UDR No.7/2021 was registered by Kolhar Police Station under Section 174(C) of Cr.P.C. A perusal of the postmortem report discloses that the cause of death is due to a sudden cardiac arrest due to vagal inhibition. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was kidnapped by the other accused persons and was murdered by strangulating him. No doubt, this Court has granted bail in respect of other accused persons. According to the prosecution the other accused persons are supari killers. Since the deceased took possession of the land measuring 38 acres which was in occupation of the petitioner, the petitioner was having grudge against him. The prosecution has collected telephonic conversation between the petitioner and the other accused persons. Hence, it is clear that in order to take away the life of the deceased, the petitioner who is the mastermind of the crime entrusted the work of eliminating the deceased to the other accused persons by giving supari for Rs.5,00,000/-. When such being the 6 allegation against the petitioner and also considering the motive of the petitioner in taking away the life of the deceased and also prima facie material i.e., telephonic conversation between petitioner/accused No.1 and other supari killers, it is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge him on bail.
8. In view of the observations made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*