Karnataka High Court
Yallesh @ Indra S/O Tippeswamy vs The State Of Karnataka By on 15 February, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6518 OF 2012
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6523 OF 2012
In Crl.P.No.6518/2012
BETWEEN:
Yallesh @ Indra
S/o Tippeswamy
Aged about 23 years,
Student, Studying II Year B.A
Chikkanahalli VIlalge,
Chitradurga Taluk and District-577 501
(Accused No.2 before Trial/Sessions Court)
(Now in judicial custody)
...Petitioner
(By Shri R.B.Deshpande, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka by
Rural Police Station,
Chitradurga-577 501
...Respondent
(By Shri G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, GP.,)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner
on bail in SC No119/2012 on the file of the Addl.S.J.,
FTC, Chitradurga, for the offence P/U/S 302, 120B. 201
r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
In Crl.P.No.6523/2012
BETWEEN:
Umesh @ Umesh Naika,
S/o Murthinaik,
Aged about 22 Years,
R/o D.Madakaripura Village,
Chitradurga-577501
...Petitioner
(By Shri Spoorthy Hegde, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka by
Chitradurga Rural Police Station,
Chitradurga-577 501
...Respondent
(By Shri G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, GP.,)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner
on bail in Crime No.272/2012 of Chitradurga Rural
P.S., CHitradurga for the offences P/U/S 302, 120B.
201 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
3
These Criminal Petitions coming on for orders on
this day, the Court made the following: -
ORDER
In these two petitions filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C the respective petitioners arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 in SC No.119/2012 pending before the Fast Track Court, Chitradurga have sought for an order to enlarge them on bail.
2. These petitioners and another have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 120B r/w Section 34 IPC.
3. According to the case of the prosecution, a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-16-M-6630 was found in the canal on 29.04.2012 at about 8.00 p.m., by the side of Hosur village in Chennagiri taluk and inside the said car one B.Manjappa was found dead. The dead body was already in a state of putrification. On coming to know of this, CW1 Netravathi claiming to be the wife of deceased Manjappa came to the scene of occurrence and identified the dead 4 body as that of her husband B.Manjappa. The car also was stated to be owned by the deceased Manjappa. CW1 Netravathi suspected that her husband might have driven the car at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and has fallen into the channel. In that regard she lodged a report on 30.04.2012 at about 12.00 pm., based on which Santebennur police in Chennagiri taluk registered the case in Crime No.59/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
4. During investigation, the dead body was subjected to PM examination. During investigation CW2-Rudramma @ Kamalamma who also claims to be the wife of deceased Manjappa was examined and she said to have disclosed that on 27.04.2012 at about 12.30 noon the deceased left the house in Chitradurga in his Tata Indica Car stating that he would go to his Areca nut garden and at 2.00 pm., deceased called her through his mobile bearing No.973129334 to her brother Thimmesh's mobile No.9844604998 and asked him to renew the currency of his mobile. Accordingly, 5 the said Thimmesh renewed the currency. However, thereafter, when she tried to call her husband, she received message as not reachable. During that night he did not return. However, on the next day, when she called her husband's mobile number, some one picked up the call and when she questioned as to who was that person, he replied as Yellesh of Chikkenahalli and switched off the mobile. Thereafter, on 29.06.2012, CW2 lodged a report before the rural police Chitradurga about missing of her husband based on which case in Crime No.272/2012 came to be registered for missing of a person. During investigation of that case, CW2 expressed doubt against accused Rajappa, brother of deceased Manjappa as responsible for the death of the deceased. Based on that, said Rajappa was arraigned as accused No.1 and thereafter, the accused No.2 Yellesh was apprehended. During interrogation accused No.2 said to have confessed to the crime and also said to have disclosed the complicity of accused No.3. Thereafter, accused No.3 was apprehended and at the 6 instance of accused No.3, a mobile hand set was recovered. According to the alleged voluntary statement of accused Nos.2 and 3 at the instance of accused No.1, the deceased was killed on 27.04.2012 in the garden land and thereafter the dead body was put into the car of the deceased and later the car was pushed into the channel. Thereafter, the petitioners were subjected to judicial custody. On completion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. The application filed by the petitioners for grant of bail came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. The petitions are opposed by respondent- State.
6. I have heard both the sides and perused the records made available.
7. As noticed supra, at the initial stage, the death of the deceased was treated as accidental death. However, later it was converted into homicidal death. 7 As noticed supra, during investigation, the dead body was subjected to PM examination. Even by the time of the PM examination the dead body was in advanced stage of putrification. As per the contents of the PM report there were no external injuries. The doctor who conducted PM examination preserved viscera, stomach and its contents and blood and those articles were subjected to forensic examination. The scientific officer on examination of those articles opined that the color tests and gas chromatography instrumental methods responded for the presence of Ethyl alcohol in Exhibits.1, 2 and 3 but no other poison was detected in those articles. After receipt of the report from the FSL the doctor who conducted PM examination furnished opinion that cause of death could not be ascertained as the body was in advanced stage of putrification. Thus, the medical evidence does not prima facie indicate the death of the deceased as homicidal.
8. As noticed supra, the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The role of these two 8 petitioners was said to have disclosed by themselves in their alleged voluntary statement. In the charge sheet accused No.1 is shown as absconding. Along with the charge sheet, no material is produced to prima facie indicate that the deceased owned a mobile phone bearing the number noted above. The mobile hand set said to have been recovered at the instance of accused No.3 prima facie not shown to be that of the deceased.
9. At this stage, Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, I am of the considered opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to indicate the complicity of these petitioners in the death of the deceased. Therefore, at this stage, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are guilty of any offences alleged. Therefore, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Petitioners are stated to be in judicial custody for nearly 8 months. The investigation is already over and the matter is pending before the Sessions Court. Therefore, the question of petitioners 9 tampering the prosecution evidence does not arise. Accused No.2 is stated to a student of 2nd year BA., and resident of Chikkenahalli village where as accused No.3 is stated to be the lorry driver and resident of Madakaripura village, Chitradurga district. Therefore, there is no likelihood of petitioners fleeing away from justice. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
10. Hence, the petitions are allowed. Petitioners (Accused Nos.2 and 3) are ordered to be released on bail in SC No.119/2012 pending before the Fast Track Court, Chitradurga on each of them executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge and subject to further conditions that,
i) They shall not tamper or terrorise with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
ii) They shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case.
10
iii) They shall appear on all hearing dates before the Court without fail.
iv) They shall mark their attendance in the respondent - Police Station, on every 20th of each calendar month till the disposal of the case.
v) They shall not go out of the jurisdiction of Court of Sessions without express permission thereof.
It is made clear that the observations made during the course of this order are only for the purpose of disposal of the bail petition and they shall not in any way influence the learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the matter on merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH