Karnataka High Court
Hanmappa @ Muttappa S/O Siddappa Poojar vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2020
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6 t h DAY OF AUGUST 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100427/2020
BETWEEN:
HANAMAPPA @ MUTTAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA POOJAR
AGE 32 YEARS , OCC: AGRI CULT URE,
R/O: HIREHAL, T Q: RON , DIST: GAD AG
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AMRUTH VASANTH JOIS , A DVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY POLICE INS PECTOR,
RON CIRCLE,
REPRES ENTED BY THE HCGP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, D HARWAD.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS
WHICH THIS HON 'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN RON
P.S . CRIME NO.132/ 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CIV IL
JUDGE AND JMF C COURT, RON FOR THE OFFEN CE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTI ON 302 AN D 201 IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the accused 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.132/2019 of Ron Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) pending on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Ron.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Channabasavva, w/o Basavaraj Totaganti of Hirehal village has lodged a complaint against unknown person on 16.09.2019 alleging that she is a resident of Hirehal village of Ron Taluk and is staying with her husband Basavaraj, her sons Mallikarjun and Sangamesh and that her daughter by name Parvati was married to Channappa Channalli of Halligudi village and another 3 daughter by name Kavita was given in marriage to Veeranna Shekhappa Basavareddi of Kalaadi village and he died before 3 years. After the death of her husband, Kavita stayed at Shalavadi village with her two children. On 12.09.2019, the complainant received a phone call to her husband's mobile number by the sister of Veeranna Shekhappa Basavareddi and stated that Kavita left the house at about 12.00 pm towards Hirehal village and enquired that whether she has reached the place. The complainant stated that Kavita has not come to her house and she called to her number and the same was switched off. On 13.09.2019, the complainant with her sons and other relatives went to Shalavadi village and enquired the whereabouts of Kavita. Thereafter, the complainant got enquired with her relatives and on 16.09.2019 the husband of the complainant had been to Munirabad, the complainant received the information that a dead body of a lady was lying at nala and immediately, the 4 complainant, her sons and relatives rushed to the place and found dead body in an unindentified situation and by looking to the clothes and the ornaments, the complainant got confirmed the said dead body as that of her daughter Kavita. It was found that somebody had strangulated and killed her daughter. The incident had taken place on 12.09.2019 at 1.30 pm to 16.09.2019 at 10.00 am.
3. After the receipt of the complaint, the respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.132/2019 on 16.09.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet. The petitioner filed bail application before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, in Crl.Misc.No.4/2020 and it came to be rejected by order dated 23.01.2020. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
5
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no eyewitnesses or direct evidence to prove the commission of the offence. It is his further submission that the petitioner has been arrested on the strength of the further statement of the complainant. It is his further submission that there are contradictions with regard to time in the statement of CWs.16 and 17 with regard to last seen of the deceased. It is his further submission that the petitioner is alleged to have made extra judicial confession before Shankarappa (CW-20) on 12.09.2019 but he kept quite till 18.09.2019. It is his further submission that no missing complain was filed. With these, the counsel prayed for allowing the petition and granting bail to the petitioner.
6
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has made extra judicial confession before Shankarappa (CW-20) and the deceased has been last seen by CWs.16 and 17. It is his further submission that if the petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. Hence, he prayed for rejecting the petition.
7. 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. Even according to the complaint averments, there is no allegation against the petitioner/accused. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Except the extra judicial confession made by the petitioner before Shankarappa (CW-20) and the last seen theory by CWs.16 and 17, 7 there are no incriminating material against the petitioner.
8. It is well settled that matters to be considered in an application for bail are:
"(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the 8 evidence or witnesses, may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused."
9. In a decision reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of Uttara Pradesh and Another, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer 9 periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society."
10. In the present case, investigation is completed. No grounds have been made out by the prosecution to show that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The petitioner is the resident of the address shown in the cause title and the same is not disputed. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, petitioner is likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.
11. 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 certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order.
10
The petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.132/2019 of Ron Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Due to COVID-19, the petitioner is permitted to furnish surety within two months'.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission till disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv