Karnataka High Court
Ravi Basappa Shrishaila Gurlahosur vs State Of Karnataka on 24 November, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102094/2021
BETWEEN:
Ravi @ Basappa Shrishaila Gurlahosur
Age: 40 years, Occ: KSRTC Driver
R/o. Toranagatti
Tq. Ramadurga, Dist: Belagavi
...PETITIONER
(By Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
By Katkol Police Station
Represented by the State
Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Dharwad 580 001.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri. Ramesh Chigari, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973, SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO
THE PETITIONER IN SC NO.104/2021 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN CRIME NO.165/2020 OF
KATKOL POLICE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A), 302, R/W.
SECTION 34 OF IPC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the accused No.1 under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.165/2020 of Katkol Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 302 R/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) pending in SC No.104/2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that;
One Mr. Mahantappa Jalihal, father of deceased Shaila, has lodged a complaint stating 3 that his elder daughter Shaila was given in marriage to petitioner/accused No.1 in the year 2014, and his parents were residing with the petitioner in Toranagatti. They had begotten two children out of the said marriage. At the time of marriage, 1 tola of gold and Rs.30,000/- was given to the petitioner as Varopachara. After marriage, the petitioner looked after his wife well for a period of four months and thereafter petitioner and his father accused No.2 started harassing the deceased stating that she do not know how to do the household work properly. The complainant and others advised the petitioner to look after the deceased properly. The petitioner has been advised four years ago in the police station. The petitioner had made a separate house around one year six months prior to the incident in Ramadurg. Even there also he 4 harassed his wife. Thereafter the petitioner has shifted his house to Toranagatti about 8 months ago. On 20.11.2020, the petitioner and deceased Shaila had come to the house of the complainant on the eve of marriage of her younger sister. On 04.12.2020, the complainant left the deceased Shaila in her husband's house. When the complainant was in the house of Maruthi Kaoujalagi in K. Chandargi village, the petitioner called him and asked him not to leave Chandargi and at about 8.00 pm, the petitioner along with his friends went there and told the complainant to take back his wife Shaila, otherwise it lead to serious consequences. It is thereafter at about 9.30 pm, the petitioner called the complainant and informed that himself, Shaila and others are eating food. On 05.12.2020, at about 6.00 pm, when the complainant was in the house of Maruthi 5 Kaoujalagi and the said Maruthi informed that the petitioner had called him and told that at about 5.45 am, he killed Shaila near the land of Shankarappa Sattigeri. It is thereafter, the complainant and others went to the said spot and saw the dead body of the deceased Shaila.
The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.165/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 302 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC. After investigation charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner was arrested on 06.12.2020 and remanded to judicial custody.
The petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.870/2021 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, by order dated 07.09.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail. 6
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It would be the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, he has not committed any offence as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is his further submission that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. There is no demand for dowry by the petitioner. The only circumstance against the petitioner is extra judicial confession said to have been made by him before CW14 over phone and before CW19 personally. The statement of CW19 has been recorded after six days of the said extra judicial confession. It is his 7 further submission that the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. The father of the petitioner is suffering from cancer. The petitioner is the KSRTC driver and he has two small children to look after. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the offences alleged against the petitioner are heinous offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The mobile phone and ornaments of the deceased have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner/accused No.1 under mahazer. The doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, has mentioned that there is comminuted hyoid bone fracture and cause of death is asphyxia due to 8 strangulation. The petitioner/accused No.1 has made extra judicial confession before CW14 over phone and before CW19 personally. The charge sheet material show prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
7. The accusation leveled against the petitioner/accused No.1 is that, he was harassing his wife and he took his wife on the date of incident for walking, where he strangulated her with a rope by putting kerchief in her mouth and 9 committed her murder. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. One of the circumstances is that the petitioner has made extra judicial confession before CW14 over phone and before CW19 personally. As the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish each of the circumstances at the trial. The counsel for the petitioner has produced documents to show that the father of the petitioner is suffering from cancer and he has to look after his two minor children. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. 10 The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to stringent conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in Crime No.165/2020 of Katakol Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh
only) with one surety for the like
11
sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in
tampering the prosecution
witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab