Karnataka High Court
Ravindra S/O Tukaram Malavade vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 September, 2020
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2 N D DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100913 OF 2020
BETWEEN
RAVINDRA S/O TUKARAM MALAVADE
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: JAYANAGAR, SHIGGAON,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHRIHARSH A NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE CPI,
CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
SHIGGAON POLICE STATION, SHIGGAON,
THROUGH SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON REGULAR BAIL IN
CRIME NO.116/2019 BY THE RESPONDENT-SHIGGAON POLICE
STATION, SHIGGAON FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 302, 397 R/W
SEC. 34 OF IPC, PENDING TRIAL OF THE SAID CASE, WHO ARE
IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY IN THE ABOVE SAID CRIME.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITON COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAYS, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.116/2019 of Shiggaon Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 397 R/W Section 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Ramanath Vittappa Choudari has filed complaint stating that his sister Smt.Shantabai W/o Gangadhar Malavade was given in marriage to one Gangadhar Krishnappa Malavade and they had four sons and one daughter and all the children are married are living separately and husband of Shantabai died nine years back and she is living alone at Shiggaon. It is further alleged that Smt.Shantabai called him over phone on 15.08.2019 and invited him for Rakhi festival and thereafter on 17.08.2019 at about 9.00 a.m. the son of his sister namely Maheshwar called him over phone and informed that his sister Shantabai has expired due to heart 3 attack and he along with his three brothers went to Shiggaon and saw the dead body of his sister and found that there were injuries over the body accordingly he had lodged the complaint alleging that some persons might have committed murder of his sister. On the basis of the complaint, Shiggaon Police have registered the case in Crime No.116/2019 against the unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The police after investigation have filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 397 and 302 of IPC. In the charge sheet it is alleged that petitioner-accused No.1 and his wife went to the house of deceased asking for her gold ornaments for repayment of their loan and when she refused to give, they tied her on the cot and smothered her with pillow by sitting on her body and robbed her gold ornaments and went away by opening the gas and keeping a small burning lamp. The petitioner and his wife tried to commit suicide by consuming poison and wife of the petitioner i.e. accused No.2 died on 25.08.2019 at KIMS Hospital, Hubballi. The Police arrested the petitioner- 4 accused No.1 on 17.08.2019. The petitioner-accused No.1 filed bail application before I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in Crl. Misc. No.87/2020 and the same was dismissed by order dated 26.02.2020. Therefore, petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and learned HCGP for respondent-State.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 that case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the incident. It is his further submission that the wife of the petitioner committed suicide and the petitioner-accused No.1 has three daughters and two are married and third daughter marriage is fixed on 27.12.2020 and the petitioner-accused No.1 is the only person who has to look after her daughter. It is his further submission that the petitioner is aged 58 years and is ready to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by this 5 Court and ready to furnish the surety. With this he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that petitioner-accused No.1 and his wife have killed the deceased and robbed her golden ornaments. The gold ornaments of the deceased have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner-accused No.1. It is his further submission that charge sheet material prima facie show the involvement of the present petitioner-accused No.1 for the offences alleged against him. It is his further submission that if the petitioner-accused No.1 is granted with bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prays to reject the bail petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through charge sheet records. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The robbed gold ornaments have already been recovered. The 6 petitioner-accused No.1 is aged 58 years and he is having one unmarried daughter to look after and her marriage is fixed on 27.12.2020.
7. It is well settled that matters to be considered in an application for bail are:
"(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses, may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused."7
8. In a decision reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 in the case of DATARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARA PRADESH AND ANOTHER, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society."
9. In the present case the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed and no grounds have been made out by the prosecution to show that custodial 8 interrogation of the petitioner-accused No.1 is necessary. The petitioner-accused No.1 has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner-accused No.1 is residing in the address shown in the cause title and it is not disputed. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of grant of bail, the petitioner-accused No.1 is likely to cause threat to the complainant and prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing some stringent conditions.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that there are valid grounds for grant of bail subject to conditions. Hence, I pass the following.
ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The petitioner-accused No.1 shall be released on bail in Crime No.116/2019 of Shiggaon Police Station, subject to the following conditions.
9
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. In view of Covid-19, the petitioner is permitted to furnish surety within two months. If circumstances arise, jurisdictional court is permitted to extend the time for furnishing surety.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court regularly and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE Hm b