Karnataka High Court
Ravi S/O. Narasappa vs The State Of Karnataka By on 9 July, 2020
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2487/2020
BETWEEN:
RAVI S/O.NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OCC:BUSINESS
R/O.Y.BASAVANAHALLI
KAVALU VILLAGE
KADUR TALUKA
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI UMESH P.B., ADV. FOR SRI.RAVINDRA B.
DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR PETITIONER)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
HASSAN RURAL POLICE STATION
HASSAN RURAL CIRCLE
HASSAN-573 201
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHOWRI H R, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.50/2020 OF HASSAN
RURAL P.S, HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 AND
201 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
-2-
ORDER
This is a petition filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.PC in Cr.No.50/2020 on the file of the Hassan Rural Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC initially recorded in the FIR. However, chargesheet has been laid against the accused before the Committal Court in the aforesaid Cr.No.50/2020 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 304A, 201 and 202 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Since the date of arrest, the accused is in judicial custody, hence, the counsel for the accused/petitioner prays to enlarge him on regular bail for the grounds urged therein.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
It is stated that based on the complaint filed by the complainant one Gurumurthy on 18.03.2020, at about 11.15 a.m., a case in Crime No.50/2020 came to be registered for the aforesaid offences. That the -3- complainant is working as a Watcher in Windpower Company since 10 years. That on 18.03.2020 at about 9.30 a.m., when he was working near a Windpower situated at Ranganatha Swamy Hill, he observed that one car had entered into forest area of Ranganatha Swamy Hill at about 10.00 a.m., through Bommenahalli-Karehalli village junction. Since he was on the top of the hill, he could not recognize the model of the car and was silent for some time thinking that somebody had come to cut the trees in the forest area. After sometime, he shouted to the inmates of the Car and after hearing the sound, the persons who had stopped the car took heel from there, but around 10.30 a.m., suspecting some acts in the said incident, the complainant being a Watcher along with one Ranganayaka who was working in the Forest Department, together went into the forest area and found a dead body of a male person in the nearby stream where the car was stopped. They suspected that somebody might have murdered that person and to destroy the evidence, they might have thrown the dead body into the stream. -4-
3. In pursuance of the act of the suspected accused persons, on filing of the complaint by the complainant, a case came to registered by the Police against the accused. Subsequent to registration of case against the unknown persons, the Investigating Officer thoroughly investigated the case by recording the statement of the witnesses so also drew mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and laid a chargesheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 201, 202 of IPC, but left the offence under Section 302 of IPC where the ingredients do not constitute for the aforesaid serious offences so also no material has been secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation regarding murder of Shanthappa. But, accused Nos.1 and 2 said to have been lugged in the alleged chargesheet laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused persons for causing death of the deceased for the aforesaid offences. The same has been reflected in the chargesheet.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused during the course of his argument that the -5- accused is an innocent person and he has not at all committed the alleged offences, moreover, no intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased or he has nothing to do with the alleged incident. It is further contended that on filing of the complaint, a case in Crime No.50/2020 initially came to be registered against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC. On thorough investigation done by the Investigating Officer, a chargesheet has been laid against the accused by invoking the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The entire case is based upon the circumstantial evidence and the circumstances relating the chargesheet laid by the Investigating Officer is not sufficient to hold that the accused has committed the alleged offences. That the petitioner was suspected by the relatives of the deceased Shanthappa and the Police informers and at the instance of voluntary statements given by the accused, the Investigating Officer proceeded with the investigation and laid the charge-sheet. That the accused is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest. Therefore, the ground urged in this petition be considered -6- for grant of bail, as he being an innocent person. It is further contended that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence and it do not link to the accused to commit the alleged offences, as found in the material collected by the I.O. during investigation.
5. Lastly, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is the only bread winner in the family to eke out the lives of the dependants. Moreover, he has lost his father on 26.04.2020. Therefore, if the accused is kept behind the bar for a longer period, certainly his family members could be ruined in the Society. Further he prays that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this court. These are all the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused seeking for grant of bail.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State contended that FIR came to be registered by the Police against the accused based on the complaint by the complainant that the accused have committed murder of deceased -7- Shanthappa under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC though under suspicion. The Police have registered a case against unknown persons in Cr.No.50/2020. Subsequent to registration of the crime, these accused have been apprehended by the Police on 05.04.2020. Whereas the materials reveal that dead body of the deceased was brought in a car and thrown into the stream in forest area. Stating that these accused persons have caused the death of the deceased, so that the Investigating Officer has laid chargesheet against the accused in Cr.No.50/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 304A and 201 of IPC.
7. However, the Investigating Officer after thoroughly investigating the case, by recording statement of witnesses and also conducting mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and laid chargesheet against the accused on the ground that the accused has caused the death of the deceased. Therefore, the accused does not deserve grant of bail merely for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 201 of IPC. If the accused is supposed to be released on bail, certainly, he would come -8- in the way of prosecution case and destroy the evidence. Moreover, one of the accused namely Venkatesh is absconding since the commission of alleged offence. These are the contentions taken by the learned HCGP for the State while seeking for dismissal of the bail petition filed by the accused.
8. The contention taken by the learned counsel for the accused, so also the counter made by the learned HCGP are concerned, it is relevant to state that on 18.03.2020, the complainant Gurumurthy has found a car entering into forest area at about 10.00 a.m., in Ranganatha Swamy Hill. He though that somebody has come to cut the trees and after some time, when the complainant shouted at the inmates of the Car, they ran away from that place along with car. At abour 10.30 a.m., the complainant along with one Ranganayaka went to that place where the car was stopped and found a dead body of a male person aged about 34 years thrown towards stream. He had given a complaint before the Police, who based on the said complaint registered a case in Crime -9- No.50/2020 against unknown persons initially for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,202 of IPC. During the course of investigation, on suspicion, these accused persons were apprehended and proceeded with the investigation. The Investigating Officer recorded voluntary statement relating to commission of offence and his vehicle bearing Registration NO.KA-07/9703 was seized. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer has drawn mahazar at the instance of the accused persons. However, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of witnesses in detail and laid chargesheet against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 201, 202 read with Section 34 of IPC, but left out the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
9. The substances of the chargesheet reveals that near Buddeshara Mutt in Hassan, accused No.3 Vijayashankar was having coconut garden land. On 18.03.2020 at about 8.00 a.m., this petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1, accused No.2-Vishwanatha, along with C.W.2 and deceased Shanthappa went to coconut garden for the purpose of plucking the tender
- 10 -
coconuts. The deceased being a coolie had gone with them to pluck the tender coconuts. While he was climbing the coconut tree, for his negligence he fell down from the tree and sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital in a car, while on the way to hospital he died. However, C.W2 and C.W3 cited in the chargesheet have seen that accused Nos.1 and 2 took the deceased Shanthappa in a Car bearing Registration No.KA-07/9703 to provide treatment to him in Nittur Hospital but while on the way, he last his breathe. The incident had taken place due to negligence on the part of accused No.1 Ravi and accused No.2 Vishwanatha as alleged. Therefore, the Investigating Officer after thorough investigation of the matter has laid chargesheet against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 for the cause of death of the deceased for the aforesaid offences. The dead body of Shanthappa was sent to Post Mortem. The Investigating Officer had held inquest over the dead body in the presence of panch witnesses and also collected PM. Report. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of witnesses so also drew the spot mahazar and laid
- 11 -
chargesheet against the accused persons before the Committal Court in Crime No.50/2020 on the file of Hassan Rural Police for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 201, 202 read with Section 34 IPC, which is triable by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate.
10. Initially, based on the information given by the informants, a case in Cr.No.50/2020 was registered against some unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC. After thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer laid chargesheet against the accused only invoking offences under Section 304-A IPC. Though offences under Section 302 of IPC has been invoked in the FIR said to have been recorded by the police against unknown persons, but however in the charge-sheet, offences under Sections 304-A, 201 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC only have been invoked, thus leaving out the offence under Section 302 IPC. The petitioner herein is accused No.1 but Accused No.2- Vishwanath is absconding since from recording of FIR. Therefore, it is said that, at this stage, detailed discussion
- 12 -
is not required for considering the bail petition so also detailed documentation. However, the material secured by the Investigating Officer are sufficient to lay the chargesheet against the accused, but it cannot be said that there are enough materials to decline relief of bail as sought for. However, the learned HCGP for State submits that if the accused is supposed to be released on bail, certainly, there shall be adverse impact on the Society. The apprehension made by the learned HCGP could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution.
11. For the aforesaid reasons as well as in the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the accused deserves to be released on bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.PC is hereby allowed, subject to following conditions:
(i) The petitioner/accused shall execute bail bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for the
- 13 -
likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court in Crime No.50/2020 of Hassan Rural Police Station, which is pending before the Committal Court of I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Hassan;
(ii) The petitioner/accused shall not tamper or hamper the prosecution witnesses;
(iii) The petitioner/accused shall appear before the Court of law on all dates of hearing without fail;
(iv) The petitioner/accused shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioner/accused violates any of these conditions, the bail order automatically stands cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-*