Karnataka High Court
Shri Bhadrinath B R @ Bhadri vs State By on 13 October, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7334 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SHRI BHADRINATH B R @ BHADRI
S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT RAMAKRISHNA TRADERS,
INFRONT OF BALAJI TALKIES,
B.B. ROAD,
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BY
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN PS
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU 560001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.83/2021
(C.C.NO.8/2022) OF CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN P.S.,
CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 114,120B,302 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
IPC ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPAURA DISTRICT.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.09.2022 THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.83/2021 registered by Chikkaballapura Town Police Station, Chikkaballapura District and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Ram, the Police registered a case against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging that there were property dispute between the deceased-Smt.Nalina and the petitioner-accused who is the son of the deceased. A civil suit was also pending in respect of the properties. The suit also decreed in favour of the accused and ordered to give 3 1/3rd portion in the property of the father of the deceased i.e., Ramakrishna and the accused also residing separately along with his family members. There was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused in the year 2012. A case was registered in Crime No.27/2012 which is also pending. On this background, the accused being the son of the deceased, hired the supari killers from Andhra Pradesh and conspired with them to commit murder of his own mother and on the day of incident, the accused went to a trip. That on 15.10.2021, between 8.30 and 8.45 p.m., the accused Nos.2 to 5 entered the house of the deceased and committed murder. The complainant who is a tenant under the deceased also said to be seen the accused while going out after committing the murder. After arresting some of the accused and on the voluntary statement of the co-accused, this petitioner also made as accused for having committed murder of his own mother with the help of contract killers. The petitioner was arrested on 23.10.2021 and he was remanded to the 4 judicial custody. His bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.
4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no specific allegation against this petitioner and he was not present on the spot, he was on Pilgrimage. The police have falsely implicated the petitioner. There is no recovery from this petitioner. The age of the deceased was 63 years, but at the time of post mortem, she was 32 weeks pregnant and there may be some other persons responsible for her murder. Learned counsel further contended that previously the deceased eloped with some other person and his father was also tested positive for HIV and due to the quarrel between the petitioner's father and mother, the father of the petitioner committed suicide. The complainant is behind the registration of false case against the petitioner to knock out the property who is a press reporter. The petitioner is in custody from almost one year. The investigation is 5 completed and charge-sheet has been filed. Hence, prayed for granting bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the petition and contended that there was enmity between the deceased and the petitioner. He has contracted accused Nos.2 to 5 for committing murder by paying Rs.10.00 lakhs. The voluntary statement of accused Nos.3 and 4 apart from the phone call list reveals that the accused persons have frequently contacted this petitioner and committed murder. The complainant is the eye witness who have seen the other accused while going inside and coming outside the house. There is prima facie material placed on record to show that this petitioner has committed murder of his own mother. Hence, prayed for rejecting the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, which reveals, the name of this petitioner is shown as accused No.3 in the FIR. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have stated in the FIR said to be found near the spot and 6 the complainant came near the spot, some public caught hold accused Nos.1 and 2 and now they have mentioned as accused Nos.2 and 3 in the charge-sheet. On their voluntary statement, this petitioner was arraigned as accused No.3 in the FIR and it is alleged that accused Nos.2 to 5 have committed murder of the deceased-Nalina in the house by slitting the neck with knife. Now he is made as accused No.1 in the charge-sheet. The entire allegation goes against accused Nos.2 to 5 who have actually participated in commission of murder. The accused-petitioner who is son of the deceased hatched conspiracy to commit murder by giving supari to accused Nos.2 to 5. It is pertinent to note that on the date of incident, the petitioner was out of station, he was said to be went to pilgrimage. The only phone call list for having contacted the accused persons by this petitioner and the voluntary statement made by this petitioner for connecting the petitioner with this crime. The voluntary statement of this petitioner is inadmissible except recovery. The petitioner was arrested and he is in judicial custody from 7 23.10.2021. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The matter also committed to the Court of Sessions and pending for trial. The co-accused persons were all in jail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the petitioner in custody will not serve any purpose except for trial. Therefore, by imposing certain stringent conditions, if bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution.
7. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to release the petitioner- accused No.1 on bail in Crime No.83/2021 (S.C.No.3/2022) registered by Chikkaballapura Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner-accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) 8 with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;
(ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;
(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;
(iv) Petitioner shall take trial without causing any delay.
(v) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the Court.
If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB