Karnataka High Court
Sri Shashi Kumar J vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 August, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRL.P.NO. 6461 OF 2022
C/W
CRL.P.NO.6585 OF 2022
IN CRL.P.NO.6461/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI. JAYARAMAIAH B.M.,
S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
#E-339, BHAVANI ROAD
NEAR CANARA COMPUTER
HEBBAGODI, CHANDAPUR
BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BENGALURU, ANEKAL
KARNATAKA-560 099.
[NOTE: 1. NAME OF THE PETITIONER IS WRONGLY
SHOWN IN THE ORDER SHEET AS:
MEESE JAYARAMAIAH ALIAZ B.M. JAYARAMAIAH.
2. THE PETITIONER WAS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.7
IN REMAND APPLICATION. IN THE CHARGESHEET
HE IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1]
....PETITIONER
[BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-2-
HIGH COURT BUILDING
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001. ...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R/STATE (PH)]
THIS CRL.P NO.6461/2022 IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C. BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.2/2022 REGISTERED BY ANEKAL
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 302, 109, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC., PENDING ON THE FILE OF
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT, SIT AT ANEKAL IN S.C.NO.5045/2022.
IN CRL.P.NO.6585/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHASHI KUMAR J.,
S/O JAYRAM, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT THAMMANAYAKANAHALLI
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106.
PERMANENT ADDRESS:
HEBBAGODI, ATTIBELE HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 107.
....PETITIONER
[BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR D., ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 001. ...RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R/STATE (PH)]
-3-
THIS CRL.P NO.6585/2022 IS FILED U/S. 439 CR.P.C. BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRL. MISC. NO. 5149 / 2022 (S. C. NO.
5045 / 2022) IN CR. NO. 02 / 2022 OF ANEKAL P.S., BENGALURU
RURAL FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 109, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC
ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.6461/2022 is filed by petitioner/accused No.1 and Criminal Petition No.6585/2022 is filed by petitioner - accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting bail in Cr.No.2/2022 registered by the respondent - Anekal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109, 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC pending on the file of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Sitting at Anekal, in S.C.No.5045/2022.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel in both cases and learned HCGP for the respondent - State. -4-
3. It is the case of the prosecution that one Padma, who is the employer of the deceased - Rajashekara Reddy lodged a complaint on 05.01.2022 alleging that the deceased was appointed by her to look after the affairs of the landed properties situated at Anekal jurisdiction. It is stated that on the date of the incident, the deceased Rajashekar Reddy left home in the car belonging to the complainant informing her that he will going to meet the advocate to get legal opinion in respect of the sale of property. Thereafter at about 8.13 p.m. one Ayyappa informed that some unknown persons assaulted Rajashekara Reddy inside the car with machete and he is in serious condition. She along with her daughter reached the spot, where police and some persons were gathered and found that Rajashekara Reddy was dead inside the car i.e., on the driver seat itself.
4. After registering the case the police conducted investigation and on the voluntary statement made by accused nos. 4 to 6, it revealed that there was land dispute between the accused no.1 and the deceased, as the -5- deceased removed the board installed by accused no.1 in the land stating that there was civil litigation which was pending before the Court. Same was came to the knowledge of accused no.1 and he found that the deceased was planning to sell the same to some other persons, therefore, he decided to eliminate said Rajashekara Reddy. Hence he contacted accused no.2 - Shashi Kumar, the younger son of accused no.1 - Jayaramaiah B.M. and in turn Shashi Kumar, approached accused No.8- Prathap, who is said to be a supari killer and in that regard there was a mutual agreement between them to pay one crore as supari amount to eliminate Rajashekara Reddy and accordingly with the assistance of accused no.2 conspired to kill the deceased and committed the murder by using deadly weapons.
5. It is also revealed that accused no.1 paid Rs.4,50,000/- by way of cash to accused no.8 and agreed to pay Rs.1 crore apart from a site and also assured him he will construct a house to accused no.8. Subsequently -6- accused no.1 and 2 were arrested on 08.01.2022 on the voluntary statements of accused no.4 to 6 and they are in judicial custody. Investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner- accused No.1 contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has not involved in commission of the offence. He is in custody for more than 7 months and investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Presently petitioner is suffering from Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) and severe back ache he was admitted to Mithra Multi Specialty hospital and discharged. Still he requires further treatment and rest, therefore prays for grant of bail.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner - accused no.2 contended that there is no connection or contact between accused no.1 and 2, who is father and son, as the accused no.2 wwfell in love with a girl and later on he married her against the consent of the parents, therefore relationship between father and son was strained and they are residing -7- separately. He further contended that accused no.2 is also having a 7 month old baby and he has to look after the day today requirement of the family. Further he has no contact with accused no.8 also or payment of any amount. Hence sought for granting bail.
8. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that accused no.1 and 2 are father and son. Both of them were equally responsible for causing the murder of Rajashekara Reddy and contacted accused no.8 to eliminate Rajashekara Reddy assured him to give rupees one crore as supari and also to give a constructed house for him. Accordingly accused no.1 gave Rs.4,50,000/- by way of cash as advance amount apart from giving a site. Therefore involvement of accused nos.1 and 2 in the commission of murder has clearly established by the police. There are eye witnesses to the incident. Therefore, prays for dismissal of bail petition.
9. He further contended that if at all this Court inclined to grant bail to accused No.1 on medical grounds, it -8- may be a fact that minimum period of 30 days or 60 days be granted to him.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both petitions and also learned HCGP for the respondent- State and on perusal of the records, it reveals that accused No.1 said to be having landed property in Anekal Taluk and the complainant is also having some agricultural lands which was looked after by the deceased Rajashekara Reddy. To obtain some legal opinion in respect of sale of some property, deceased left the house at about 11.30 a.m. and went to lawyer's office in the car and did not return. During the investigation the police traced the accused No.4 to 6 and on their voluntary statements accused No.1 and 2 were arrested. Of course the petitioners were not directly participated in the commission of the murder of Rajashekara Reddy, but accused No.1 definitely given supari to accused No.8 and accordingly agreed to give rupees one crore as supari money for committing the murder and paid Rs.4,50,000/- as advance by way of cash and assured him to give a constructed house apart from a site. Of course -9- accused No.2 is the son of accused No.1 is said to be living separately, but on the voluntary statement of other accused and the case of the prosecution reveals this accused no.1 being father of accused no.2 - Shashi Kumar contacted him for committing the murder with criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. Thereafter accused no.2 contacted accused no.8 for commission of murder. Accordingly accused no.8 agreed for the same by receiving supari money. Therefore, it cannot said that accused no.2 has no role in committing the murder. It is stated that actually accused no.1 did not know accused no.8, but this accused no.8 was introduced by accused no.2 to accused no.1. Therefore, the role of accused no.2 is very much established in committing the brutal murder of Rajashekara Reddy on account of a civil dispute. Therefore, accused no.2 is not entitled to grant bail.
11. However, accused no.1 is said to be 57 years of age and also suffering from Urinary Tract Infection and also low-back pain. As per the medical certificate issued by the
- 10 -
hospital, he requires further treatment and complete bed rest as he is suffering from back pain. But there is no other serious incurable illness for him to grant absolute bail. If at all, he requires any further treatment for UTI in any other Super Specialty hospitals, he may avail the same.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in respect of accused no.1 also no bail can be granted on the merits of the case. But, in view of medical requirement, by imposing stringent conditions if petitioner no.1 is granted atleast a limited period of three months interim bail for getting UTI treatment in a Super Specialty hospital, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Petition No.6461/2022 s allowed in part. The Criminal Petition No.6585/2022 is dismissed. The petitioner - accused no.1 in Crl.P.No.6461/2022 is ordered to be released on bail for a limited period of three months, in Crime No.2/2022 of respondent - Anekal Police
- 11 -
Station, pending on the file of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Sitting at Anekal in S.C.No.5045/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109, 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Petitioner - accused no.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/-
(Rupees two lakhs only) with two
sureties for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court;
(ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar
offences strictly;
(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;
(iv) Petitioner shall not contact any other accused persons in the Jail.
(v) The petitioner-accused no.1 shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City or Bengaluru District without prior permission of the Trial Court except for the purpose of taking treatment in any
- 12 -
other super specialty hospital outside Bengaluru.
(vi) The petitioner-accused no.1 shall surrender before the Trial Court on expiry of 90th day without seeking any further extension of time.
If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.
Any observations made by this Court in this petition in respect of accused no.2 shall not influence while disposal of the case by the Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE Psg*