Karnataka High Court
Shri. Machal Khaitan Parera Pereira vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28 T H DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101093/2021
BETWEEN:
SHRI. MACHAL KHAITAN PARERA @ PEREIRA
AGE: 29 YEARS , OCC: A GRICULTURE,
R/O: TIVOLIWADA , T Q: KHANA PUR,
DIST: BELA GAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VISHWAN ATH BADIGER, AD VOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRES ENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (KHANAPUR P.S .)
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BEN CH, AT DHARWAD .
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI , HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYIN G TO ALLOW THI S
PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PET ITIONER/ACCUSED
NO.3 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.7/ 2021 REGISTERED BY
THE KHANAPUAR POLI CE STATION (C.C.NO.301/ 2021)
PENDING ON THE FILE OF T HE PRL. JMFC, KHANAPUR)
FOR THE OFFEN CE PUNISHA BLE UND ER SECTI ONS 504,
302 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the accused No.3 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.7/2021 of Khanapur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 302 201 r/w 34 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).
2. It is the case of the prosecution that Velenit Pirera is the complainant who is brother of deceased Vincent perera and he is residing along with his wife and doing fabrication work and his mother Margarate and brother Vincent were residing at Tivoli Vada village of Khanapur Taluk. It is further stated that the complainant used to come to his mother's 3 house on Saturday and Sundy and his brother Vincent was doing work in MRF Company at Goa and since after the lockdown he returned and staying in house and since his brother Vincent suffering from lungs problem as he was working in MRF tyre company and he was mentally upset with the said problem. On the previous day, the complainant and his wife after having meal in his mother and brother house, they left to Hunchanatti Belagavi. That on 04.01.2021 at about 4.00 p.m., his friend Salawadar Mates Minoj telephonically informed that his brother Vincent was missing and did not returned to house. Thereafter, he was informed that his brother Vincent was committed suicide by lighting fire in the land of one Pavalu Manuvil Pierera. The complainant immediately rushed to the spot and noticed 4 that the body of his brother was incompletely burnt condition. He enquired his mother and she told that on the previous day at 5.00 p.m. his brother by saying her to prepare food and he kept his purse and mobile phone and motorcycle in house and gone outside and did not returned and she kept quite as his brother Vincent may gone to his relatives house. Later, she came to know about the incident. The complainant suspected on the death of his brother Vincent and requested for further action. The complaint was registered in UDR No.1/2021 in Khanapur Police Station on 04.01.2021. The post mortem was conducted in BIMS Hospital, Belagavi and the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination has opined that Hyoid bone is fractured on right side. On the said basis, the complainant made 5 complaint before the Khanapur Police Station, alleging that his brother was murdered by strangulation by somebody for some reasons to destroy the evidence they have burnt the dead body in between 03.01.2021 to 04.01.2021. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.7/2021 on 12.01.2021 in Khanapur Police Station. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer secured accused No.2 and during the enquiry accused No.2 stated that since wife of accused No.1 was having illicit relationship with the deceased Vincent, accused No.1 advised his wife Nitu about the relationship as it is bringing disrepute to his family and despite the same, his wife continued her illicit relationship with deceased. Therefore, accused No.1 decided to murder the deceased Vincent and for that reason the 6 accused persons called the deceased to the land of Pavalu Manuviel Perera on 03.01.2021 for a party at night 8.00 p.m. and accused No.1 asked him not to continue the illicit relationship with his wife, and at that time, deceased Vincent told him to advise his wife regarding the same. Being enraged, accused No.1 abused the deceased and assaulted the deceased on his head with spade which was hanging from the Mango tree near the hut, accused No.2 assaulted him with iron rod at the neck of the deceased and petitioner/accused No.3 assaulted with stick on his head and when the deceased created hue and cry, accused No.2 closed the mouth of deceased with his right hand and strangulated the neck of the deceased and committed murder. The petitioner-accused No.3 was 7 arrested on 19.01.2021 and police recorded his voluntary statement. The petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.507/2021 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, by order dated 12.05.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It would be the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, has not committed any offence as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The deceased was suffering from lung problem as he was working in MRF tyre Company and he was worried about 8 the said problem. The alleged eye-witnesses namely CWs.18 and 19 have not stated any overt act of the petitioner-accused No.3. The petitioner-accused No.3 is in judicial custody since 19.01.2021. As the charge sheet has been filed and therefore the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and other accused is heinous offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner-accused No.3 in his voluntary statement has admitted that he has assaulted the deceased with stick. The charge sheet material will clearly goes to show that there is a prima facie case against the 9 petitioner for the alleged offences against him. If, the petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prayed to dismiss 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 papers.
7. The accusation leveled against the petitioner is that he along with accused Nos.1 and 2 have secured the deceased for a party and at that time, accused No.1 asked him to discontinue his illicit relationship with his wife and deceased asked him to advise his wife and being enraged by that accused No.1 assaulted 10 the deceased with spade on his head and accused No.2 assaulted the deceased with iron rod on his neck and accused No.3 assaulted the deceased on his head with stick. Thereafter, when the deceased started screaming, accused No.2 pressed his neck and thereafter they put the dead body in a haystack and put fire to it and burnt the dead body with an intention to destroy the evidence. CWs.18 and 19 are the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, their statements are recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the police and under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate. In the statement, the said eye-witnesses have not stated anything with regard to the overt act of the petitioner-accused No.3 and the overt act is against accused No.1. Since the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for 11 any custodial interrogation. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.
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 certain 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 shall be released on bail in Crime No.7/2021 of 12 Khanapur Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner-accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE RM