Karnataka High Court
Shantayya Swamy S/O Revenayya Swamy vs The State Through on 8 August, 2016
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200912/2016
Between
Shantayya Swamy
S/o Revenayya Swamy,
Age: 55 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Village Nidoda,
Tq. Aurad and Dist. Bidar
...Petitioner
(By Sri Avinash A. Uplonakar, Advocate)
AND:
The State through
Santhpur Police Station
Dist. Bidar
...Respondent
(By Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M. HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to allow
the petition and issue necessary direction to the
respondent Police to release the accused/petitioner on
bail in Crime No.113/2016 of Santhpur Police Station
2
Dist. Bidar, in the event of his arrest, which is registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504 of
IPC.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition filed by the petitioner/accused under section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest of petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under sections 306 and 504 of IPC registered in Respondent police station crime number 113/2016.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that on 23.6.2016 at about 17.00 hours complainant by name Smt Kavita lodged the complaint alleging that she was given in marriage to Ramesh about eight years back and after the marriage she led happy married life and in the wedlock she got one female child by name Gundamma. Since last five 3 years her husband is not feeling well and she suspected that petitioner is doing 'Bhanamati' (Black magic) and occasionally he used to go to the house of the petitioner to ask as to why the petitioner is doing black magic and petitioner told him that "you are mad person and die somewhere". Further it is alleged that on 19.6.2016 husband of the complainant went towards Ghanagapur for darshan, but he did not return back. Later came to know that he has not gone to Ghanagapur. On 23.6.2016 father-in-law of the complainant came to know that her husband has committed suicide by hanging near Dhari Hanuman Aurad. She and other villagers went to Dhari Hanuman and found that her husband has committed suicide by hanging and his dead body was hanging to neem tree and somebody phoned to the police. The police came to there and then arranged to remove the dead body and from the dead body two chits have fallen from his packet. One was white colour and another yellow colour. On opening those chits and reading found that due to Bhanamati (black magic) by petitioner he has committed suicide. 4 On the basis of it a case came to be registered as against the present petitioner.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent/State.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in the said case. There is no intention aiding and abetting on the part of the petitioner as per sections 107 and 109 of IPC. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that merely on the face of piece of paper, the allegation of abettment will not be attracted. He submitted that there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner that he has committed the offence under section 306 of IPC. Hence he submitted by putting reasonable conditions he may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
5
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that looking to the chits which are said to have fallen from the packet of the deceased goes to show the involvement of the present petitioner and it is the petitioner who is the main reason for the deceased to commit suicide. He also submitted that the matter is still under investigation and at this stage the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the order passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the bail petition. Looking to the allegations in the complaint, the wife of the deceased filed the complaint and it is the main allegation that the deceased was telling before her that the petitioner was doing bhanamati (black magic) on him. But in this connection except the said two chits alleged to have left by the deceased and seized from the packet of the deceased, there is no other material at this stage. Petitioner has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. It 6 is no doubt true the matter is still under investigation, the offence alleged under section 306 of IPC is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, by imposing stringent conditions, the petitioner can be admitted to anticipatory bail.
The petition is allowed. The Respondent police are hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences subject to the following conditions;
(1) He has to execute his personal bond for Rs.1.00 lakh with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting authorities. (2) He shall not tamper with any prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
(3) He has to mark his attendance before Respondent police on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. till the completion of investigation and filing of the final report. 7 (4) He has to appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and to execute the personal and surety bonds as stated above.
Sd/-
JUDGE *MK