Karnataka High Court
Shivanand @ Shivu So Basappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 2064
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100526 OF 2018
BETWEEN :
SHIVANAND @ SHIVU
S/O. BASAPPA SURYAVANSHI
AGE:36 YEARS
OCCUPATION. BUSINESS
R/O UNAKAL, HUBBALLI, DIST.DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI T R PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HUBBALLI VIDYANAGAR P.S.
R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ANAND K. NAVALAGIMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 TO
RELEASE HIM ON BAIL, IN CC NO.2611/2017 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE JMFC-II COURT, HUBBALLI, IN ARISING OUT OF
HUBBALLI VIDYANAGAR P.S.CRIME NO.257/2017, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 120(B), 341,
504, 506, 324, 302 AND 201 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The police have laid a chargesheet against the petitioner and other accused persons in pursuance of the FIR lodged by a lady by name Smt. Iravva Mallikarjun Nilannavvar. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 in the above said case. As per the FIR, there is no allegation against this petitioner - accused No.3 about his actual participation in assaulting the deceased. According to the complainant herself, the petitioner is an absentee abettor. The complainant Smt. Iravva has given the first FIR stating that the accused No.1 and 2 by name Ningappa and Raju were often assaulting her son by name Basavaraj since 5-6 years because of some property dispute between them. About a week prior to the incident it is alleged that, the petitioner had threatened the deceased Basavaraj with dire consequences of killing him. In this background, it is alleged that on 05.09.2017 at about 4.45 p.m. when the complainant and her son were proceeding near Unkal :3: Chalwadi oni near Ambedkar Samudhaya Bhavan in Hubli three persons came in an auto rickshaw, splashed chilly powder to the deceased and assaulted him with iron rods and knives and her son Basavaraj sustained severe injuries and he was declared dead when he was taken to the hospital. On these allegations, the complainant stated that the petitioner herein was also one of the conspirators along with other accused persons who have committed the alleged offences. The police, during the course of investigation have recorded further statement of the complainant and other witnesses. The complainant has given statements on different dates on 10.09.2017 and 20.09.2017. Though there is some implication of the petitioner - accused in the FIR and the statement on 10.09.2017 i.e., he is the absentee abettor, but there is no material to show that in what manner he was connected with other accused persons who have actually assaulted the deceased. On 20.09.2017 further statement of the complainant reveals that, she has given the statement :4: against the petitioner and other accused persons on the ground that their names have been noted by her son in one of his notebooks and because of that reason she has given complaint arraying the petitioner as one of the conspirators, but she actually does not know who are all the persons who have conspired together for the purpose of committing the murder of her son. Therefore, it is only the guess work of complainant as per her statement that she has implicated this petitioner as abettor. Further added to that, there are no strong circumstances collected by the police in order to pre-meeting of all the accused persons so as to tentatively come to the conclusion that petitioner has some connection with other accused persons in order to do away with the life of the deceased Basavaraj.
2. Under the above said facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a strong unbeatable prima facie case against the petitioner. The petitioner was :5: arrested on 29.09.2017 and since then he has been in judicial custody. He is no more required for any investigation because the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has already been laid. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to conditions. Accordingly, the following :
ORDER i. Petition is allowed.
ii. Consequently, petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with C.C. No.2611/2017 on the file of J.M.F.C. II Court, Hubli, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 341, 504, 506, 324, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., subject to the following conditions :
a. Petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. :6:
b. Petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. c. Petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE hnm