Karnataka High Court
Avinash S/O Ramanna Phule vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 August, 2022
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201004/2022
BETWEEN:
AVINASH S/O RAMANNA PHULE
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR,
R/O CHANDAPUR, TQ AURAD-B,
DIST BIDAR 585328
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH POLICE, DHANNURA POLICE STATION,
BHALKI RURAL CIRCLE, TQ BHALKI,
DIST BIDAR 585328
REPRESENTED BY ADDL SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH 585107
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P. FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO. 10/2022 OF
DHANNURA PS, DISTRICT-BIDAR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SEC. 364, 302, 201, 120B, 109, 34 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE
THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeking to enlarge the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.1 (as per Charge Sheet), on bail in Crime No.10/2022 of Dhannura Police Station, Dist: Bidar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B and 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).
2. It is alleged by the prosecution that on the basis of complaint lodged by father of the deceased the said case came to be registered. It is stated that on 18.01.2022 the complainant and his children by name Sunil, Anand @ Goradh, Kartik Rahul and Radik and his wife Indumati and one Ashok who is the friend of Sunil had dinner at about 10.30. p.m. and slept in their house. On 19.01.2022 at about 05.00 a.m. when the complainant wake up, he found that his son Sunil is not there. Thereafter, he searched for him, but he did not find whereabouts the said Sunil. On 22.01.2022 at about 10.00 a.m. the complainant came to know that at 3 Koutha (B) Village Bridge near Manjra River, a dead body was found in a suspicious manner. They identified that it is dead of Sunil. Based on the complaint filed by the complainant a case came to be registered in UDR.No.1/2022. Thereafter, the police have investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the four accused persons, including this petitioner. It is contended that accused No.3 - Ashok (as per FIR) developed illicit relationship with Accused No.1 - Archana (as per FIR). In this regard there is a quarrel in the family of the deceased - Sunil. Thereafter, accused No.1 with the help of accused Nos.3 and 4 committed murder of Sunil. The bail petition filed the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition.
3. Heard Sri. Sanjay A. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is innocent and only on suspicion the case came to be registered. He further argued that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is not involved in any offence. 4 He is young boy and he is in judicial custody from 28.01.2022. The police have completed the investigation and filed Charge Sheet in April 2022 itself. There is long delay in filing the complaint. There are no eye-witnesses to the incident. There is no motive to the petitioner to end of the life of deceased - Sunil. The allegation against this petitioner is that he assaulted the deceased with iron rod. No incriminating articles were recovered and the article rod recovered does not contain any blood stain. The petitioner was very much present in the village only. The seizure was in open place. The said weapon was sent for examination i.e. after long delay, just to implicate this petitioner in this crime. It is further argued that Archana/accused No.2 was demanding for partition and share of her deceased husband, complainant has taken undue advantage of the death of his son Sunil, has proceeded to create a story of illicit relationship of Archana with present petitioner and filed complaint by making false allegations. The other accused are already released on bail. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.
5
5. Against this, learned High Court Government Pleader argued that the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with death or imprisonment for life and they are serious in nature. There are voluntary statements of the witnesses and recovery of incriminating materials. Therefore, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may abscond and may tamper the prosecution witnesses and may not appear before the Court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have perused the material produced before the Court. Admittedly, on the basis of information of complaint the case came to be registered in UDR No.1/2022. It is alleged that accused No.3 has illicit relationship with accused No.1 and this fact came to knowledge of the deceased - Sunil. So, accused have eliminated the deceased - Sunil.
7. It is stated that accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.200288/2022 dated 08.04.2022; Crl.P.No.200687/2022 dated 11.07.2022 and in Crl.P.No.200912/2022 dated 02.08.2022. It is stated that Archana/accused No.2 was demanding for partition and share 6 of her deceased husband, complainant has taken undue advantage of the death of his son Sunil and has proceeded to create story of illicit relationship of Archana with the present petitioner.
8. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into consideration, (1) the nature and seriousness of the offence; (2) character of the accused;
(3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused;
(4) reasonable probabilities of presence of the accused not being secured at trial;
(5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; and (6) larger interest of public or the state and similar other considerations, which arise when a Court is asked to admit the accused to bail in a non-bailable offence.
9. Therefore, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and material placed before this 7 Court, it is evident that Charge Sheet is already filed and petitioner is no more required for further interrogation. As the other accused are already released on bail, as entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am of considered opinion that the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail.
10. The apprehension of the prosecution can be meted out by imposing reasonable conditions on the petitioner, as he has undertaken to co-operate with the investigation and furnish sureties. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The petitioner/accused No.1-Avinash Ramanna Phule (as per Charge Sheet) in Crime No.10/2022 of Dhannura Police Station, Dist: Bidar on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Bhalki, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B, 109 read with Section 8 34 of IPC, shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions.
i) The petitioner shall execute a self-bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with a surety, for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
ii) The petitioner shall not try to tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities and shall not commit similar offences.
iv) The petitioner shall furnish proof of his
residential correct address to the
Court/Investigating Officer and shall inform the Court/Investigating Officer if there is any change in the address.
v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of Trial Court.
vi) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing unless his presence is dispensed by the Trial Court.9
In case if any of the condition is violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.
Sd /-
JUDGE s du