Karnataka High Court
Sanjeev S/O Tirakappa Adagal vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 October, 2009
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CERCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF' OCTOBER, 2oo'éi'V"-
BEFORE
1THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. vE*r¢Uoos§A1gA:e=oWD'A'
CRIMINAL PETITION iiio. %?8'8l9/lineal,' _ " it
BETWEEN:
Sanjeev
S / o. Tirakappa Adagal,
Age. 30 years, *
Occ. Agriculture, _ .
R/o. I-Eole Itagi, --
Tq. Shirahattt I r
Dist. Gadag. ii ~ '
PETITIONER
{l33y_TSrii.v A _ .
AND: E l E T T
The State" Karnataka,
Mundargi V-RS.
V . '- vRepi..f}3y"S.PP
. ' 2 High Co-1;rt=-- of Karnataka,
A _ V t_Ciret;igtl Ben._c:h.,
H ._
RESPONDENT
('By i~$:ri.'P'.;I-I. Gotkhindi, P{.C.G.P.) A_;T1j1is Crl.P is filed U/S. 439 CR.P.C. by the Advocate for' the petitioner praying to allow the criminal petition and ' enlarge petitioner on regular bail in connection with _4'_'?»'I-undargi PS. Crime No. 2221/2008 in C.C. No. 74/2009 pending on the file of Civi} Judge (Jr.Dn.) 8:. J.M.F'.C., Mundargi, which is charge sheeted for the offence punishable U/sec. 447, 302, 504, 109 R/W. 34 ofI.P.Cg-and to grant such other relief.
This Crl.P is coming on for Orders this_da3r;':the"Co«Lirtit made the following:
0 R DER The petitioner, who is custody" after his arrest during investigation? in} Crime No. 221/2008, now having c,o.»--No.M 74'/i.2do9,}'egietered for the offences /s::e*c. u'5'0V4, 109 R/W. 34 1.13.0, Where.in;i"he aiirayedifas accused No.1, has filed this Vpeti~tionVii¥';"se,c; seeking enlargement on bail.
petitioineiiiihad filed a petition for bail U/sec. Court of District 82; Sessions Judge at Gadagifi 'iI'hS:'j__i..5petition having been opposed by the prosec1iti.oh/ State, after consideration was rejected by the ' Sessions Jiidge, Gadag vide order dtd. 25/07/2009. \~/« )~€
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned I-I,.C.G.P. for the respondent.
4. Sri. K.L. Patil, learned counsel appea1*"i'n'g it petitioner by taking me through thevavermgenits the petition and the charge sheet rnaterials 74 submitted that, the investigatio_n'~w..is faulty,' the Vmat'e1'1'als collected during investigation a,nd:"'the"«v..charge~.¢=he.ot filed, have not made out a prima--=i'acie the petitioner, in respect of the e'offenc,e""for:"vvhic.h__ he been charge sheeted. It fflcornteridedg that,. the respondent has unnecessarily'iinpiiicated in the alleged crime. It was sub'mi--tted thr--it-,_4ti1e4'petitioner is innocent and a peace loving citize"n,__andiiiis ray concerned with the alleged _ crime,,._§ir1V questioin, Since, he is a permanent resident of having immovable property, he may be eniargedli oniV"_bvail,:'that to by subjecting him to appropriate condit'ions,._'.ai'so; considering the fact that, the investigation _. been completed and charge sheet has already been filed. Sri. P.I-I. Gotkhindi, learned I-I.C.G.P. appearing for respondent contended that, after the crime was E/e registered, investigation was undertaken. The petitioner is found to have committed the offences punishable U /sec;3,iCi2,, 447, 504, 109 R/w. 34 1.13.0. The offences committed _ petitioner are cognizable, non--bai1ab1e and is. «thou Sessions Court and the punishment prescrjib'e,di'=death,,_ .i imprisonment for life. He referred to certain.viistavtemeigits"
contending that, they are incriminating mat~e_ri'ais: appearing against the petitioner/a.cci.1sed_{i'WgSiinc_e,"the statements of Balappa Kaiiwai--compiainantfdefceasedf Parashuram Jadhav, a circu.m'sta'ntia§i_'i iPuttavva Telgi, Shivaji Jadhagviiaind 1Baisairar}e:j, E-adhirriappanavar make out a case against tihe5ip_.et'itiAone«r,,.iiflvenlarged on bail, he may jump the bail and threatenilthie"pro-secution Witnesses. Learned H.C.G.}?. _referred_:to the factvof recovery of a Weapon through 'ii'pa,ncl':ias and the positiimortem report showing the death to be <:h.1,e"'Cxep»tecen;ia shock caused by heavy sharp weapon or surface. _ ,it7yvas submitted that, in the circumstances of _ the case,~th'e petitioner is not entitled to bail. In View of the rival contentions, the point for coynsideration is; x' against the petitioner. Statement of Parashuram Jadhay is recorded on 26/01 / 2009 and may not appear to be relevance. The statements of Smt. Pattavva Thela,gi~, : i' not seen the incident, also appears... to be"
amount of delay. In these circums:tan<;§esA~,'iVthie. case &of'i_theiV_i prosecution being dependant upc--:1 circumstantial 'evidence, which does not prima--facie appea_rto:_be_p_nor. doubt and since the investigation':'hasifibeen and charge sheet has been filed, the resident of I-Iole--Itagi, roots, the chances of very remote. The Petitioneziii Conditions, subject to the compliance§f'--which.,i'.he.ic;an_:i:be""enlarged on bail. Hence, I pass the follovriiigi: ' V. ._ 439 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed.
The jurisdictional Court is directed to release the on bail in Crime No. 221/2009 on the file of ii.'j~ii___"'li/Iuniciargi Police Station and charge sheet filed for the b offences punishable U/sec. 447, 302, 504, 109 R/W. 34 l.P.C., on the petitioner executing personal bonti-.'_lf0,r Rs.50,000/ -- and furnishing two local surities in thewliisze' _ each and also subject to the further condition_.t~h--a.t::ij.V V
i)
iii) The Petitioner shall not in any} ina"n_nerll'eitheir:e.l intimidate or influencpeé the w_itnesses"'lc:rV:tamper with the evidence of the lprosecutiolri-.. The Petitioner shall {rna--ijkf--h§.s 'attendance before the SHO of cornpla.inant¥&Po'lii:;e__ S~tati.on, once in 15 days, l3etviif§¢.n.rarn Ito' pm, on every Ti1e"Petitioiier "'sh"all" not leave the Sessions V _ _Jurist:lir:_tion of Court without its prior permission. '_l'he --Pet,itioner shall not involve himself in any g sirnilar' (grime.
he Petitioner shall not absent himself on the dates of trial of the case by the Sessions Court and shall render co-operation for early disposal of the case. i /'