Karnataka High Court
Anil S/O Sadanand Kurle vs The State Through Sulepeth Ps on 17 July, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200646/2017
Between:
Anil S/o Sadanand Kurle,
Age: 32 Years,
Occ: Goldsmith & Agriculture,
R/o Ganesh Mandir,
Kalaburagi.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Sharanabasavareddy R. Chennareddy, Advocate)
And:
The State Through
Sulepeth P.S.
Represented by Addl. SPP,
Kalaburagi High Court Bench,
Kalaburagi.
... Respondent
(By Sri. Sheshadri Jaishankar M., HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail in
Crime No.20/2017, (C.C.No.250/2017) of Sulepeth P.S., Tq.
Chincholi, Dist. Kalaburagi.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:-
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.250/2017 of Sulepeth P.S., registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (For short 'IPC').
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, accused Nos.1 and 2 were having illicit relationship between them, same was used to be objected by the deceased husband of the accused No.1. In that light, on 1.2.2017, deceased questioned accused No.2 about his visiting his house and in that connection there was a clash between accused No.1 and the deceased. On the same day, again a hot talks taken place between the deceased and his wife accused No.1. Though the complainant tried to pacify the matter, but accused No.1, the wife of the deceased kicked the deceased on his testicles, also hit with small stone on the chest, head and on the right eye of the deceased. At that time, the 3 petitioner/accused No.2 also visited the house of the complainant and accused Nos.1 and 2 took the deceased towards Kharchged road at about 5:00 P.M. and subsequently took the deceased near the bund of the land. Thereafter, accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with stone on his chest, head and other parts of the body besides twisting the testicles of the deceased. Accused No.2 also sat on the chest and assaulted with the stone on his head and other parts of the body, thereafter accused No.1 alone returned to the house at about 10:00 PM. When the complainant asked whereabout of the deceased, she did not answer properly and on 3.2.2017, one of the villagers by name Lalappa came and informed that, the dead body of the deceased was lying in the field of Zangri Gous. Immediately, complainant went to the said spot and by seeing the dead body of his father. Thereafter, he lodged a complaint against the accused persons. 4
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that, petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He would further contend that, the petitioner is the resident of Ganesh Mandir, Kalaburagi and the alleged incident has taken place at Nidagunda village, which is far distance from Kalaburagi. He further contend that there is no overtacts on the part of the accused No.2/petitioner. He would further contend that, petitioner has come to the house only after accused No.1 has assaulted and taken the deceased out of the house. He further contend that, already investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation or interrogation. He would further contend that, the petitioner is having both movable and immovable property and if the petitioner is 5 released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contend that, there is a dispute between the deceased and the accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.2 was frequently visiting the house of the accused No.1 as he was having illicit relationship with accused No.1. He would further contend that, the deceased has died due to the injuries of occipital region and the accused persons have assaulted the deceased with stone on his head and other parts of the body. As such, the deceased succumbed to the said injuries. Accused have committed heinous offence of murder, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6
6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition.
7. On going through the records, it indicates that, because of the illicit relationship between accused Nos.1 and 2, the deceased, the husband of accused No.1 used to quarrel with the accused No.1 and for having become angry with the deceased, accused No.1 assaulted on the head and other parts of the body and kicked on the testicles. Thereafter, accused No.2 also came there and both the accused Nos.1 and 2 took the deceased near land of one Zangri Goush and there, they took the deceased near the bush, accused No.1 sat on the chest of the deceased and assaulted with stone on his chest, head and other parts of the body. Thereafter, accused No.2 also sat on the chest of the deceased and he also assaulted on the head and other parts of the body with stone. Thereafter, accused No.1 has twisted testicles of the deceased, as a result of which, deceased died. Even the post mortem 7 report, which has been produced along with the charge sheet would clearly indicate that the deceased has sustained four injuries on the occipital region and even the doctor has opined that the death is due to brain contusion, injury to the lungs with fracture of 3rd and 4th left ribs, etc. When the act of the accused and the post mortem report also corroborate with each other, under such circumstances, I feel that there is a prima facie material as against the petitioner for having committed the heinous offence of murder, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BL