Karnataka High Court
Veeresh S/O. Shivayogappa Humnabadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
Crl.P.No.102328/2017
BETWEEN
1. VEERESH S/O.SHIVAYOGAPPA HUMNABADI
AGE 29 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. VALMIKI CIRCLE, SHIRAHATTI.
2. PRAKASH S/O. NINGAPPA TELI
AGE 20 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. VALMIKI CIRLCLE, SHIRAHATTI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.M.SHIRALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GUTTAL P.S, HAVERI,
R/BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO RELEASE THEM ON BAIL, IN C.C.NO.
816 OF 2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT HAVERI, ARISING OUT OF
GUTTAL P.S. CRIME NO. 210 OF 2017 REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 201 READ WITH
34 OF IPC AGAINST THEM.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Guttal P.S. in Crime No.210/2017 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Since from the date of their arrest, the petitioners are in judicial custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners is praying for enlargement of the petitioners on regular bail.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on filing of the complaint by the complainant, a case came to be registered for the aforesaid alleged offences and thereafter, the investigation was conducted by the Investigation Officer. The allegations made in the FIR recorded by the Police, it reveals that on 04.07.2017 one Somangouda S/o.Sankargouda Marigoudar has filed a complaint before Guttal Police. His elder brother by name Nagangouda since deceased in this case was working as a reporter of Kannada Daily Newspaper by name Kannadamma and was having illicit relationship with Smt.Nirmala W/o.Iranna Majjagi being arrayed as accused No.1 in this case and about 8 to 10 months back they have quarreled with each other. In this regard, the complainant, his relatives and other elders have advised them 3 not to continue their illicit relationship. It is also alleged that Iranna Majjagi the husband of Nirmala, who is accused No.2 in this case was nursing grudge against Naganagouda. On 03.07.2017 at about 10:00 a.m. Naganagouda as usual left the house for his work on his motor-bike but he did not returned on that day even at about 9:00 p.m. On enquiry, the complainant and other family members came to know that the complainant's brother Nagangouda took Nirmal on his motor-bike. After some time the complainant came to know through S.M.Patil of Sasalvad Village that the relative of the complainant by name Manju informed that some persons of their village were stayed in Yatri Nivas of Mylar village on the pretext that they are spouse as husband and wife and the male person informed about his occupation as reporter and both of them by staying in Yatri Nivas at Mylar village had quarreled during night hours and later on the call given by Nirmala, three persons including the husband of Nirmala came to Yatri Nivas by hiring Ertiga Car and all of them left that place in the said car. Thereafter the complainant and others came to Yatri Nivas and enquired with a room boy by name Santosh, who informed them that a pair came to Yatri Nivas and stayed in the Lodge on the pretext that they are husband and wife by booking the room by furnishing required documents. The room boy also further stated that during night hours they were not 4 keeping well and they informed that they want a vehicle to go somewhere and thereby he arranged a car for them and the driver of the said car had informed the rent of a car as Rs.4,500/- but the woman who was stayed in that lodge expressed her inability stating that she had no such quantum of money and she stated that she was about to leave the lodge by leaving behind the male person in the lodge, then the room boy insisted the woman to carry the male person along with her, who stayed in the lodge. It is also alleged that the woman called her husband on her mobile phone and asked him to come along with Veeresh Humanabadi and Praksh Teli to Yatri Nivas of Mylar village and in response to the said call, both Veeresh and Prakah along with another person came at 3:00 a.m. in a car and all of them took deceased Naganagouda in the said car. It is further alleged that at 2:30 p.m. the complainant came to know that a dead-body was lying near a bridge of Sime Halla and thereby complainant along with others went to the said spot and found the dead-body was lying there which was of the brother Naganagouda and also noticed about injuries caused on the dead-body and complainant alleged that Nirmala W/o.Iranna Majjagi with whom his brother had illicit relationship, in collusion with Nimala's husband and Veeresh and Prakash all the three persons together have committed the murder of complainant's brother Naganagouda on 03.07.2017 during night 5 hours and thrown the dead-body near bridge of Sime Halla by carrying dead-body in Ertiga car. Accordingly, on filing of the complaint, a case came to be registered by Guttal P.S. in Crime No.210/2017 and thereafter to proceed with the case for investigation for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments has taken through the complaint filed by the complainant, the FIR recorded by the Police in Crime No.210/2017, wherein the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and conducted the mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses. It is further contended that the first accused namely Nirmala had illicit relationship with the complainant's brother Naganagouda since 8 to 10 months back, they have quarreled with each other, in this regard the complainant and his relatives and other elders have advised them to give up this illicit relationship. On the fateful day, there was an altercation between them during night hours and subsequent to committing the murder of the deceased Naganagouda, the accused No.1 - Nirmala called her husband being arrayed as 6 accused No.2 for disappearance of evidence of commission of offence of murder. Accordingly, the accused Nos.3 and 4 who had brought the car for the purpose of disposal of the dead- body. Accordingly, they were carried the dead-body to Sime Halla, where the dead-body has been thrown. All these allegations were born out in the complaint, which are also reflected in the FIR,. But there are no direct overt-act against these accused Nos.3 and 4, who have carried the dead-body in the car. These accused are in judicial custody since from the date of committing the offence. It is further contended that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not at all committed the alleged offences and despite of it, the crime came to be registered by the respondent - Police against the petitioners just to give harassment to them. He further submits that the accused hails from the respectable family and they had respect in the eye of society and also they are ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court, while granting bail to them. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners praying to enlarge the petitioners on regular bail by urging various grounds.
7
4. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent - State contended that on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, a case came to be registered in Crime No.210/2017 for the aforesaid alleged offences, as where the accused No.1-Nirmala Majjagi had illicit relationship with the deceased for several months. Therefore, the deceased Ningangouda and Nirmala had been stayed in Yatri Nivasa, Mylar Village on the pretext that they are husband and wife. Wherein there was some altercation between them, but all these materials which were found in the FIR relating to the complaint filed by the complainant. Subsequent to committing the murder of the deceased, the accused No.1- Nirmala called her husband through phone, both Veeresh and Prakash along with another person came at 3:00 a.m. in a car and all of them took the deceased in the said car for the purpose of disposal of the dead body to Sime Halla and the same has been seen in the charge sheet, which has laid by the Investigating Officer relating to the Crime No.210/2017. Therefore, it appears that there are prima facie materials against the accused and accordingly, the learned HCGP 8 prayed to reject the bail petition, as the petitioners do not deserve for the bail as sought for.
5. Having regard to the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned HCGP for the respondent - State and having gone through the materials that is the complaint as well as the materials reflected in the FIR and also the materials collected by the Investigating Officer, it is relevant to state that on filing of the complaint by the complainant, crime came to be registered in Crime No.210/2017 for the aforesaid offences. But having gone through the entire materials on record it cannot be said that there are no direct overt-act attributed against the petitioners/accused for the offences leveled against them and moreover the offences which committed by the accused are concerned it is said that on the fateful day, the accused Nirmala Majjagi and the deceased had been to Yatri Nivas, as where the deceased who took her in his motorcycle and they were stayed in the said lodge on the pretext that they are husband and wife by booking the room, furnishing required documents. During night hours they were not keeping well and quarrelling with each other and they informed that they 9 want a vehicle to go somewhere. Subsequent to committing the murder, the accused called her husband on her mobile phone and asked him to come along with Veeresh and Prakash to Yatri Nivas to Mylar Village, both of them along with another person came in a car and all of them took the deceased in the said car for the purpose to dispose of the dead body. But having gone through the entire materials which were collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused persons, it reveals that the accused Nos. 3 and 4 have been brought the car for the purpose to dispose of the dead body of deceased Naganagouda, since there was an illicit relationship between the deceased Naganagouda and also the accused Nirmala Majjagi, who is none other than the wife of second accused. However, it is necessary at this stage that though enough materials have been collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of Investigation for the alleged offences against the petitioners and the same is enough for proceeding with the case for framing of charge against the accused. But it cannot be said that there are enough materials to decline the relief of bail, merely because 10 for allegation made against the petitioners. Therefore, keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, it is said that it does not require any detailed discussion, while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioners, as there are substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking for the relief of bail. Whereas, the learned HCGP submits that if the petitioners are supposed to be released on bail, certainly they would come in the way of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence. As this apprehension expressed by the learned HCGP could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The petitioners shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with like sum 11 surety to the satisfaction of the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Haveri in C.C. No.816/2017 in connection with Crime No.210/2010 of Guttal P.S. (2) The petitioners shall not tamper or hamper the case of prosecution witnesses.
(3) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a month i.e., on first week of Sunday, as per the English monthly calendar in between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. till the conclusion of the case, before the concerned SHO.
(4) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Haveri District without prior permission from the concerned Court of law.
(5) The petitioners shall not indulge with any other criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioners violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*