Karnataka High Court
Sri.Gangadhar @ Appaih vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2022
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9146 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. GANGADHAR@APPAIH
S/O VENKATRARAVANPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O VIVEK NAGAR
MULABAGILU TOWN AND TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR-563 101
....PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINATHA .B.V., ADVOCATE )
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB INSPECTOR POLICE
MULBAGIL RURAL POLICE
KOLAR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.145/2022 OF MULBAGAL RURAL P.S., KOLAR FOR THE
2
OFFENCE P/U/S.114, 302, 201 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM
KOLAR.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.145/2022 of Mulbagal Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & CJM Court, Mulbagal, Kolar Dist.
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that on the basis of the complainant lodged by Deputy Superintendent on 07.07.2022 a crime was registered in respect of the offence said to have been committed on 28.04.2015 which was based on the confession statement given by one Jagan who was arrested on 27.06.2022 in respect of the murder of Municipal Councilor of Muthyalapete by name Jagan Mohan Reddy. The accused Jagan on 3 interrogation has revealed regarding commission of crime on 30.04.2015 by the present petitioner along with other accused in respect of murder of painter Ramesh. The statement further disclose that the present petitioner has also received Rs.40,000/- towards commission of the offence and he was involved in the offence along with other accused. On the basis of this information, the investigating officer lodged a complaint in respect of the offence dated 30.04.2015 and the present petitioner came to be arrested. He moved the bail petition which came to be rejected and hence, he is before this Court.
3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the records.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the alleged offence is said to have committed on 30.04.2015 but the complaint came to be lodged on 07.07.2022 after delay of nearly 7 years. He would also 4 contend that on 27.06.2022 accused No.4 Jagan was arrested and on the basis of his confession statement the present petitioner came to be apprehended and was remanded to judicial custody. He would further contend that there are no eye witnesses and no recovery was made and entire case is based on circumstantial evidence that too after 7 years and the petitioner is in custody for last more than 3 months and as such he would seek for admitting him on regular bail.
5. Per contra learned HCGP would oppose the bail petition contending that the confession statement of co- accused was recorded and on the basis of the same the crime was registered. He further contended that statement of co- accused Jagan Mohan Reddy was also recorded by the magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein he has narrated the incident in detail and looking to these facts and circumstances the crime was revealed recently and hence, delay does not have any relevancy. He would contend that UDR was already registered in 2015 itself and as such he 5 would contend that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of he tampering the prosecution witnesses and jumping of bail. Hence, he would seek for rejection of the bail petition.
6. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that one painter Ramesh was murdered in 2015 and initially UDR was registered. However, no further steps were taken as the investigating agency was unable to trace the real culprit and it continued to be a UDR case. However, accused No.4-Jagan was arrested in Crime No.80/2022 in respect of murder of Councilor of Muthyalapete by name Jagan Mohan Reddy and during the course of investigation, the accused No.4-Jagan has revealed the involvement of the present petitioner in the crime of 2015 wherein they have caused the death of painter Ramesh by making him to consume liquor and thereafter eliminated him at the instructions of Jagan Mohan Reddy.
6
7. No doubt there is delay of 7 years, but it is to be noted here that the UDR was registered immediately after tracing the dead body of the painter Ramesh. Apart from that complainant is not the complainant or the investigating officer in the said case so as to take any interest in falsely prosecuting the present petitioner in the said case. Only after interrogation he has got information of the commission of offence in respect of UDR case and lodged a complaint. The action of the complainant in this regard is quite natural. Apart from that 164 statement recorded by the magistrate clearly disclose that Jagan @ Jagannatha has also narrated the same story of elimination of painter Ramesh in 2015 since he raised some voice against other influential accused persons. Prima- facie there is material evidence available against the present petitioner and the matter is still at the stage of investigation. This is too early to grant bail to the petitioner considering the nature and gravity of the offence.
7
8. Under these circumstances, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case wherein discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The petition being devoid of any merits does not survive for consideration and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE NS CT:NR