Karnataka High Court
Maruthi S/O Baburao Bhovi And Ors vs The State Through Wadi Police Station on 15 March, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200341/2017
Between:
1. Maruthi S/o Baburao Bhovi
Age: 36 years, Occ: Agriculture
2. Bhagvan S/o Baburao Bhovi
Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture
3. Dadaro S/o Baburao Bhovi
Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture
4. Balram S/o Baburao Bhovi
Age: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture
5. Subhash S/o Dadarao Bhovi
Age: 18 years, Occ: Student
All R/o Kundnoor Village
Tq: Chittapur, Dist: Kalaburagi
... Petitioners
(By Sri Ustad Zakir Hussain, Advocate)
And:
The State through
Wadi Police Station
Tq: Chittapur, Dist: Kalaburagi
... Respondent
(By Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to issue direction to the respondent Police
as well as Jurisdictional Magistrate to release the
accused/petitioners on bail in crime No.19/2017 of Wadi
P.S. in the event of their arrest, which is registered for the
offences P/U/Sec. 143, 147, 504, 506, 306 R/W 149 of IPC.
This petition is coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.19/2017 of Wadi Police Station, Kalaburagi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506, 306 r/w 149 of IPC.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, petitioner No.1 on the promised to assist in getting widow pension obtained signatures of mother-in-law of the complainant. Thereafter, accused No.1 got transferred the land bearing Sy.No.102/1 in his name 3 by misusing the signatures, which he has obtained. After coming to know the said fact, complainant and her husband made an enquiry, but the accused-petitioners threatened them. In that background, a panchayat was held. Thereafter, it revealed that accused No.1 has sold 3 acres of land for Rs.15.00 lakhs to one Basavaraj S/o Siddanna and remaining 2 acres for Rs.10.00 lakhs to one Rajshekhar S/o Jagannath. Thereafter, accused No.1 paid part of the amount to the husband of the complainant and remaining amount was promised to be paid on later stage. In that light, all the accused- petitioners went to the house of the deceased on 19.02.2017 at about 9:00 a.m. there the accused persons threatened the husband of the complainant as to why he was spoiling their names in the village and if he continued the same, they would take away his life. On the same day about 12:00 noon the deceased committed suicide by hanging and on the basis of the 4 complaint, a case has been registered against the accused persons.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that accused-petitioners have been included in the said case only because of civil dispute pending since more than four years. He has further contended that the accused-petitioners and the deceased were close relatives, only because to take revenge the present complaint came to be filed. He has further contended that the allegations in the complaint are not attracting the provisions of Section 306 of IPC at the most it only attracts Section 506 of IPC. He has further contended that there are no overt acts as against accused Nos.2 to 5 is concerned. He has further contended that accused-petitioners are 5 respectable members of the society and they have got both movable and immovable properties. If the accused-petitioners are enlarged on bail, they are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. On the contrary, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently contended that there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident when the accused-petitioners came to the house of the deceased and have threatened with life. He has further contended that still investigation is in progress, at this juncture, if the accused-petitioners are released on bail, there is likelihood of they being absconded and they may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6
6. I have perused the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition and also the grounds urged in the bail petition. The petitioners have approached this Court under the apprehension that they are likely to be arrested by the respondent police. On going through the contents of the complaint it discloses that there was a dispute with regard to land bearing Sy.No.102/1 and part of the consideration amount has been paid to the deceased. But the facts indicates that on 19.02.2017 at about 9:00 a.m. accused-petitioners went to the house of the deceased and there they threatened why he was spoiling their names in the village and they also threatened with life. When they threatened the deceased, the deceased has committed suicide at about 12:00 noon. Whether there is nexus between the death and threat are the matter, which has to be considered at the time of trial. When the investigation is pending and the charge sheet has not yet been filed and the entire material is not before 7 this Court, under such circumstances, it is very difficult to come to any conclusion on the said facts. As such, I feel at this juncture it is not just and proper to release the accused-petitioners on bail that too when the investigation is pending.
However, liberty is given to the petitioners to move the Court after charge sheet has been filed.
With these observations, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu