Karnataka High Court
Sathish vs State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
CRL.P No. 2035 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2035 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SATHISH,
S/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/O LAKKIRAMANAPALYA VILLAGE,
DABBEGHATTA HOBLI,
THURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 573 116.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed STATE OF KARNATAKA,
by SANJEEVINI
JAIWANTH
KARISHETTY BY NUGGEHALLI POLICE STATION,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C TO ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.20/2022
(C.C.NO.493/2022) OF NUGGEHALLI P.S., HASSAN DISTRICT
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B AND 302 R/W 149 OF IPC
-2-
CRL.P No. 2035 of 2023
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN (SIT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA) IN
S.C.NO.175/2022.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This successive bail petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in S.C.No.175/2022 in Crime No.20/2022 registered by Nuggehalli Police for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code pending on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan (Sit at Channarayapattana).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of the cousin brother of the deceased-C.W.1 one -3- CRL.P No. 2035 of 2023 Shivaraju who filed complaint to the police on 31.01.2022, alleging that on the same day at about 4.00p.m. when he was in the house, he received a phone call from one Nagegowda informed that his cousin brother Anand Kumar said to have died due to injuries. Immediately he went there and enquired with one Manjamma who is an eyewitness to the incident, where she has stated when the deceased was riding the motorcycle, two unknown persons assaulted on the backside and the head and caused injury, thereafter they ran away by taking motorcycle, due to which Anandkumar died. After registering the case, police arrested accused Nos.1 and 2 on 09.02.2022. The further investigation paper revealed, that accused No.1 is wife of deceased who was having illicit relationship with accused No.2-Naveen Kumar and the deceased was obstructing them. Therefore, they decided to commit murder and on the instigation of accused Nos.1, accused No.2 had given supari to accused Nos.3 and 4 of Rs.5.5 lakhs. Accordingly, accused Nos.3 and 4 waited to commit murder in the first instance, but the deceased did not -4- CRL.P No. 2035 of 2023 come out of the house. Thereafter, on 31.01.2022, when the deceased was riding his motorcycle to pick up his children from school, the accused Nos.3 and 4 committed murder of the deceased. The investigation is completed, charge sheet has been filed. The earlier bail petition came to be rejected by this Court on 22.08.2022 as there was eyewitness to the incident. Now the petitioner is before this Court in a successive bail petition as both eyewitnesses have turned hostile.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there were six eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution, out of which P.Ws.5 and 6 are eyewitnesses who came to the spot immediately and totally turned hostile, therefore, there is no hurdle for this Court to grant bail to this accused. Accused No.5 has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this court. Hence, prayed for granting bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government pleader seriously objected the bail petition. -5- CRL.P No. 2035 of 2023
6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of records, which reveals, of course, that this Court on merits dismissed the bail petition based upon the statement of the eyewitnesses as well as the other circumstantial evidence, now, C.Ws.5 and 6, Manjamma and Borlingegowda, are said to have turned hostile. Other witnesses were also examined, but the complainant has not yet been examined, though he is not an eyewitness. The case is also based upon circumstantial evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon and blood stained cloths, which may connect the accused with the crime. Though accused Nos.3 and 4 are contract killers, they committed murder at the request of accused No.2. Therefore, it is premature to decide the matter on its merits when merely two eyewitnesses have turned hostile. There are 48 witnesses cited by the I.O., including the circumstantial evidence, recovery panchas, etc. Such being the case, I am of the view that if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of committing -6- CRL.P No. 2035 of 2023 similar offenses and tampering the witnesses, are not ruled out.
Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, the successive bail petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK