Karnataka High Court
Shri. Babasaheb Alias Babaso Pandurang ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 December, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21 S T DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102376/2021
BETWEEN:
SHRI. BABASAHEB ALIAS
BABASO PANDURA NG KAMBLE
AGE 46 YEARS ,
OCC AGRI CULT URE
R/O. KHEBWAD E V ILLAGE,
TQ KARAVIR, DIST KOLHA PUR
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. NAGA RA THNA S. PATTAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE PSI NIPPANI
R/BY STATE PUBLI C PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BENCH, D HARWAD.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH B.CHI GARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO BY ALLOWI NG THIS PETITION
THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.5 MAY PLEASE BE
RELEASED ON BA IL, IN NIPPANI RURAL P.S. CRIME
NO.94/ 2020 FOR T HE OFFENCES PUN ISHABLE U/S 143,
147, 120(B) , 302, 201, R/W 149 OF IPC PENDING ON
THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS J UDGE, BELA GAVI, SITTING AT CHIKKODI .
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Accused No.5 has filed this petition under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.94/2020 of Nippani Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 120B, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the PSI, Nippani Rural Police Station, has filed the complaint. The said PSI was investigating the missing complaint registered in Nippani Rural Police Station Crime No.86/2020 3 regarding missing of one Vishal @ Appaso Mahesh Patil filed by accused No.1 Satish Patil who is his nephew. During investigation of the said missing complaint, the Police came to know that said Vishal was driving the Ertiga VDI Car bearing registration No.MH-12/NE- 9905 owned by his relative Abhijeet Desai for his livelihood. The said vehicle was found in the limits of Sangola Police Station limits of Maharastra State, Dist:Solapur in an unclaimed condition. After verification of the registration documents which were kept in the said car the Police came to know the name of the owner of the said car. The Police contacted the original owner by name Abhijeet Desai. The Police brought the said vehicle and its related documents. The Police asked the complainant, who has filed the missing complaint, for 4 enquiry, he did not appear. Therefore, the Police went to his house and started interrogation and he did not give proper answer and therefore, he was brought to Police Station and during enquiry he disclosed that when deceased Vishal was four months baby, his father who is the elder brother of complainant by name Mahesh died in 1995 in road accident and after one year of his death, his wife Uma also died due to ill health and hence the complainant, his mother and wife looked after said Vishal. The said Vishal was demanding share in the property saying that he would live on his own and though he was advised not to do so, he was objecting and therefore the complainant decided to murder him by spending money and by throwing his dead body without making known to anybody. 5 The accused No.1 was searching for the persons to murder the said Vishal since about one month and when he was talking with accused No.2-Amol wherein accused No.1 Satish Patil proposed about the murder of the said Vishal and therefore the accused No.2/Amol told that his relatives i.e. Petitioner/accused Nos.3 and 4 and accused No.5 Babasaheb Pandurang Kamble, would murder. The accused No.2 demanded Rs.6,00,000/- from petitioner/accused No.1. Accused No.1-Satish, who was the complainant about missing of said Vishal, agreed and he paid cash of Rs.1,50,000/- as advance to accused No.2/Amol. Accused No.2 brought accused Nos.3 and 5 to the house of accused No.1 and introduced them and he paid balance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and they told him to 6 bring Vishal on 27.09.2020. On 27.09.2020 at about 7.00 a.m. it is alleged that all the accused came to the house of accused No.1/Satish to whom he told to hide in the shed situated beside his house. Thereafter, at about 8.00 a.m. the deceased Vishal came in his car and parked it in front of the house of the accused No.1/Satish. Accused No.1/Satish told Vishal to help him to put the fertilizer bag by standing besides the shed and when said Vishal entered in the said shed, the remaining accused persons who were already there dragged said Vishal inside the shed and accused No.1/Satish told to kill him and the accused No.2 made Vishal fall down by dragging and closed his mouth by hands and accused No.4 held his legs and accused No.5 Babasaheb held the hands and thereafter the 7 accused No.1 Satish and accused No.3 Dilip together strangulated and after little bit time Vishal died and the accused by confirming the death put the dead body in a gunny bag and put it in the said car of Vishal which was brought by accused No.4/Vikas in front of the said shed and all the accused except the accused No.1 took the dead body and accused No.1 went to his house and took bath and when his mother asked where was Vishal, he acted in such a way that his mother should not suspect and therefore the remaining accused telephoned to the accused No.1/Satish that they threw the dead body in a ghat in another village limits of Gaganbhavda Taluka in Kolhapur District and parked the said car near Junoni village, Yamayi lake. The said complaint was registered in Crime No.94/2020 8 of Nippani Rural Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 120(B), 302, 201 r/w Section 149 IPC. The investigating officer has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of IPC. The petitioner/accused No.5 has filed Crl.Misc.No.5698/2021 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi, by order dated 26.11.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
9
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The overt act alleged against the petitioner is that, he held the hands of the deceased. It is her further submission that accused Nos.1 to 4, against whom serious overt act is alleged, have been granted bail. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. With this, she prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that, the offences alleged against the petitioner is heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The accusation levelled against the petitioner/accused No.5 is that he 10 held the hands of the deceased and accused No.4 held the legs of the deceased and accused No.3 strangulated the deceased and killed him. It is his further submission that on perusal of the charge-sheet, there are sufficient material against the petitioner for committing the alleged offence. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
7. The accusation leveled against accused Nos.3 and 4 and the petitioner/accused No.5 is that they have been 11 hired by accused No.1 through accused No.2 to kill the Vishal for consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-. The accused secured the deceased Vishal in a shed behind the house of accused No.1 wherein accused No.4 caught hold the legs and accused No.5 held the hands and accused No.3 strangulated him and accused Nos.2 to 5 took the dead body in a gunny bag and threw it in a ghat in another village limit of Gaganbhavda Taluka in Kolhapur District and parked the said car near Junoni village, Yamayi lake and informed the same to accused No.1. There are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Except recovery of skull, lower jaw and gunny bag shown by petitioners and accused No.5 and recovery of cash from the 12 petitioners, there are no material witnesses. As the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstances. Whether the skull found is of the deceased Vishal, is yet to be ascertained as DNA report is still awaited. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. Accused Nos.1 to 4 who are similarly placed to that of accused No.5 are granted bail and therefore, the petitioner/accused No.5 is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The main objection of the prosecution is that if the petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper prosecution witnesses. The said objection can be met with by imposing certain stringent conditions.
13
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.5 shall be released on bail in Crime No.94/2020 of Nippani Rural Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner/accused No.5 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.14
ii) The petitioner/accused No.5 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner/accused No.5 shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-
operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv