Karnataka High Court
Sharanabasava S/O. Hanumantha And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2019
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRL.P.NO.200214/2019
BETWEEN:
1. Sharanabasava S/o Hanumantha
Age: 21 Years, Occ: Student
2. Amaresh S/o Yellappa Jagad
Age: 19 Years, Occ: Business
3. Vasantha S/o Bheemappa
Age: 21 Years, Occ: Employee
All are R/o Gurugunta village
Tq. Lingasugur, Dist. Raichur-587101
- Petitioners
(By Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
R/by Addl. SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench-585107
(Through Hutti P.S.
Dist. Raichur-587101)
- Respondent
(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to grant regular bail to
the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 3 in Hutti P.S. in Crime
No.287/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302
& 201 R/w Section 34 of IPC pending on the file of Prl. Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Lingasugur, Dist. Raichur.
This criminal petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
This bail petition is filed by the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.287/2018 of Hutti Police Station, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist. Reaichur registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 R/w Sec. 34 of IPC. Since from the date of the arrest, the accused are in judicial custody and hence learned counsel prays for enlarging the accused on bail among the grounds urged therein.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and so also the learned HCGP for the State and perused the records.
3
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is stated in the complaint that the deceased-Ramesh said to be the younger brother of the complainant, on 26.06.2018 at around 8.00 p.m., himself, his younger brother and mother were present in the house. At that time, the accused persons came there and called the deceased-Ramesh and informed him that they want to watch the video recording of the marriage of one Vasantha. It is further stated by the complainant that himself and his mother asked the deceased-Ramesh to return early and thereafter the deceased left along with the accused. On 27.06.2018 at about 6.00 a.m., the complainant learned that his brother Ramesh was sleeping on a platform behind Panchayat Office of the village. Subsequently, the complainant and his mother went to the place, where the dead body of Ramesh was lying and found smell of alcohol emanating from the mouth of the deceased-Ramesh. Subsequently, the 4 complainant came to know that the accused were said to be forced the deceased-Ramesh to consume alcohol and thereafter hatched plan to finish him either by pressing the testicles or strangulating. Initially, a case in UDR No.07/2018 came to be registered on the basis of the report said to be given by the complainant. But, on suspicious grounds about the accused, complainant lodged the complaint belatedly on 11.12.2018 and same was registered in Crime No.287/2018 for the aforesaid offences. During the course of the investigation, the accused said to have been apprehended and since then they are in judicial custody.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 has taken me to the averments made in the complaint filed by the complainant on 11.12.2018, which complaint is lodged after lapse of more than five months. But, on the basis of the suspicion arouse against the accused, the 5 complaint came to be filed against the accused and thereafter investigation was carried out. The entire case is based upon the confessional statements made by the accused and there is no chain of circumstances to connect the accused to the alleged offence of committing murder of Ramesh and even there is no direct overtact against the accused. The accused are in judicial custody and they hail from respectable family and also having respect in the eye of the society. The accused are ready to abide by any terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court while granting bail to them. These are all the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners for enlarging the petitioners on regular bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the State who has taken me through the averments made in the complaint filed by the complainant before the police and based upon the complaint, a case in Crime 6 No.287/2018 came to be registered. He further submits that all the accused on the date of incident consumed alcohol and forcibly made the deceased-Ramesh to consume alcohol and thereafter they had forcibly pressed the testicles and committed murder of Ramesh, which has been revealed in the complaint and there are materials against the accused to prove the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 R/w Section 34 of IPC. There is no dispute that initially, a case in UDR No.07/2018 came to be registered and also inquest proceedings of the dead body of the deceased-Ramesh. He further submits that on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant on 11.12.2018 based on the suspicion statements about the accused that they have committed the murder of the deceased-Ramesh, the case in Crime No.287/2018 came to be registered. These are all the contentions taken by the learned HCGP seeking dismissal of the bail petition as the accused gave confessional statement and that itself 7 indicates that there are prima facie materials for involvement of committing the murder of the deceased- Ramesh.
6. In the aforesaid context, all the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned HCGP appearing for the State are concerned, it is relevant to state that initially a case in UDR No.07/2018 came to be registered on 26.07.2018, subsequent to registration of UDR case, the concerned Executive Magistrate who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. On suspicion made against the accused that they have committed the murder of the deceased-Ramesh and on filing of the complaint by the complainant on 11.12.2018, a case in Crime No.287/2018 came to be registered, subsequently proceeded with the case for investigation. The material on record reveals that the deceased-Ramesh said to be the younger brother of the complainant namely, 8 Hanamanth, on 26.06.2018 at about 8.00 p.m. when his brother Ramesh and also his mother were present in the house, at that time the accused who had come to the house and took the deceased Ramesh saying him as they want to watch the video recording of the marriage of one Vasantha. Therefore, the deceased accompanied with the accused, who are all as well as the deceased consumed alcohol. These are all the things narrated in the complaint said to be filed by the complainant on 11.12.2018, i.e., after lapse of more than five months and subsequent to registration of the crime against the accused, the case has been taken up for investigation by the I.O. and proceeded with the case for investigation and the I.O. has recorded the statements of the witnesses so also conducted the mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses. But, it is relevant to state that initially a case in UDR No.7/2018 came to be registered and after lapse of considerable time of more than five months, on the basis of suspicion, the 9 complainant filed the complaint against the accused, then the law has been set out for investigation. Therefore, at this stage, it does not require any detail discussion while considering the bail petition filed by the accused as there are substances in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking for regular bail.
7. The learned HCGP appearing for the State who has vehemently contended and submitted that if the accused supposed to be released on bail, certainly they would come in the way of prosecution. These are all contentions expressed by the learned HCGP could be curtailed by imposing suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be released on regular bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: 10
ORDER Bail petition filed by the petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 to 3 u/Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioners shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with a likesum surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court where the case in Crime No.287/2018 of Hutti Police Station is pending;
2. The petitioners shall co-operate with the I.O.
during the course of the investigation.
3. The petitioners shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses.
4. The petitioners shall not indulge themselves in any criminal activities henceforth.
5. The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a month i.e., on first week of Sunday in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. before the concerned S.H.O. for a period of six months or 11 till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier.
If the petitioners violate any of the conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL