Karnataka High Court
Smt.Harileela W/O. Ch.Srinivas vs State Of Karnataka An on 24 January, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200022/2017
Between:
1. Smt. Harileela
W/o Ch. Srinivas
Aged about 50 years
Occ: Household
R/o Radhakrishna Camp
Tq. Manvi, Dist. Raichur
2. Srinivas Rao @ Shinu
S/o Chandra Rao
Aged: 32 years
Occ: Hamali work
R/o Ambajipet, Tq. Amalapuram
Dist. East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh
3. Ram Subramanya @ Ram Babu
S/o Padmanaba
Aged 43 years, Occ: Mestri work
R/o Ambajipet, Tq. Amalapuram
Dist. East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh
4. Venkateshwar Rao @ Srinivas
S/o Suryanarayan Ganni
Aged 49 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Sriramnagar, now residing at J.P. Nagar
Navali Road, Karatagi, Tq. Gangawathi, Koppal
5. Satyanarayana @ Kondaya
S/o Chandra Rao Kadali
2
Aged 48 years, Occ: real estate work
R/o G. Agrahalu mandalam
Ambajipet, Tq. Amalapuram
Dist. East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh
... Petitioners
(By Sri Samsani Nagabhushanam, Advocate)
And:
State of Karnataka
Sirwar Police Station at Manvi CPI
By its Addl. SPP, High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench
... Respondent
(By Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to grant bail to the petitioners in
C.C.No.651/2016 in Crime No.173/2016 of Sirwar Police
Station pending on the file of Civil Judge and Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Manvi, which is registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 109 r/w 34 of
IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.173/2016 (C.C.No.651/2016) of Sirwar 3 Police Station, Manvi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the complainant after coming to know that the deceased Srinivas Rao was missing from 27.08.2016, made an enquiry and his wife lodged a missing complaint before the police. Further, on 29.08.2016 at about 7.30 p.m., the complainant came to know that an unknown dead body was found in the Thungabhadra river bank near Mustoor village; immediately, he contacted the concerned police and on request of the complainant the concerned police sent the photos of the dead body through whatsapp to the mobile phone of the complainant. The complainant by seeing the photographs identified the body as that of the deceased Srinivas Rao. Thereafter, on 30.08.2016 at about 8.00 p.m. he went to the VIMS Hospital, Bellary and after 4 identifying the same, he filed a complaint. Thereafter, he came to know that accused No.1 was having illicit intimacy with accused No.4 and accused No.4 used to visit the house of accused No.1; after coming to know the said fact by the deceased, accused No.4 was instructed not to visit his house. In that light, the accused persons with a common intention have taken away the life of the deceased and committed the alleged offence. Thereafter, the dead body has been thrown into Tungabhadra river. In that light, a case has been registered against the accused persons in Crime No.173/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B r/w Section 34 of IPC.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the petitioners have 5 been falsely implicated in this case. The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence, there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and nothing is forthcoming to connect the accused to the alleged crime. It is also contended that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. It is further contended that if the petitioners are released on bail, they are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. On the contrary, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the petitioners are the main persons who have committed the alleged offence of killing the deceased Srinivas Rao by strangulating and thereafter in order to dispose of the dead body, they have taken the body in the vehicle belonging to accused No.4 and have thrown the said body into Tungabhadra 6 river. He has also contended that the petitioners are belonging to Andhra Pradesh State and they do not have any permanent residence. He further contended that at this juncture, if the petitioners are released on bail, they may abscond and they may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have gone through the copy of the complaint and the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor.
7. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint and other materials, it indicates that accused Nos.1 and 4 were having illicit relationship and the same was noticed by the deceased and he has also warned accused No.4 not to visit his house. In that light, the alleged offence has taken place with the aid and assistance of other accused persons and even the said records indicates that the accused persons by 7 taking a lumpsum of Rs.80,000/- have committed the heinous offence of murder and disposed of the dead body into Tungabhadra river. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and the way in which the petitioners have committed the alleged offence, as contended by the learned HCGP to the effect that the accused persons may abscond and may not be available for the trial, the petitioners cannot be shown leniency. Even though there are no eye witnesses, the offences with which accused are dealt with are punishable with capital punishment. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it is not just and proper to release the petitioners on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG Ct: MHS