Karnataka High Court
Mr. Basavaraj Fakkirappa Patil vs State Of Karnataka on 12 December, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRL. P. NO. 102664/2017
BETWEEN:
MR. BASAVARAJ FAKKIRAPPA PATIL,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCCP: COOLIE,
R/O MANNANGI, TQ: SAVANUR.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI NEELENDRA D GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
HUBBALLI TOWN POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
- RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, GOVT. PLEADER)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED
NO. 2) ON REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH HAVERI RURAL
P.S. CRIME NO. 7/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S
302 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC & ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This bail petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Haveri Rural Police Station Crime No.7/2017 for the offence punishable u/S 302 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. Since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in judicial custody and therefore the learned counsel is praying for enlarging him on regular bail among the grounds urged therein.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The complaint filed by the complainant being the son of the deceased before the respondent Police alleging that the land of accused No.1 and the land of the deceased are adjoining to each other. As there was a dispute between the complainant and accused No.1 in respect of lifting of water from Varada river to their respective lands. Because of that reason there was ill will between them. Whereas the accused were alleged to have been waiting for an opportunity to eliminate the deceased. Further, on the night of the fateful 3 day the deceased went to his land along with his son being the complainant in order to letting of water to the lands. By that time, the accused were also present at the spot waiting for an opportunity as there was a grudge in between the deceased as well as accused No.1. During that night, the deceased who asked his son to be there and he will went to the wet land by letting water from Varada river. By that time, the accused No.1 on seeing the deceased chased him by holding sickle in his hand and when he was running in order to escape from his clutches, the accused No.2 also came there and caught hold him firmly and then the accused No.1 who alleged to have assaulted him with means of sickle on the parts of the chest and also on the parts of the back. As the deceased fell on the ground and thereby the accused have caused death of the deceased. A crime came to be registered based upon the complaint filed by the complainant against the accused. Subsequently, the case is taken up by the Investigating Officer for investigation and after completion of 4 the investigation he has laid the charge sheet against the accused in S.C. No. 50/2017 arose out of Crime No. 7/2017.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner so also the learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the State and perused the records.
4. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the accused during the course of his arguments has contended that there is no eyewitnesses account for the case of the prosecution. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence that the accused alleged to have committed murder of the deceased, assaulted with means of sickle said to be seized by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused by recording the statement of witnesses and so also conducting mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. As this accused being the father-in-law of accused No.1, said to be there is no direct overt act attributed against this accused regarding the assault on the deceased with means of sickle 5 but alleging that he has held firmly the deceased and thereafter the accused No.1 assaulted with means of sickle on the back and chest parts of the deceased as a result of that caused death.
5. He further contended that, during the course of investigation the Investigating Officer has recorded the voluntary statement of the accused and also recovered blood stained clothes as well as sickle from the possession of the accused No.1. Therefore, it is contended that there is no material against the petitioner herein that the person has caused death and injury inflicted over his person as narrated in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused by securing PM report issued by the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body. He further contended that the petitioner being arrayed as accused No.2 and his name has not been find place either in the FIR and the complaint. Despite of it, charge sheet is laid against the accused. Merely because of the statement recorded u/S 161 6 of Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation by the I.O. It is further contended that this accused is having an unmarried daughter and wife being their dependents to eke out life by the source of this accused. The presence of this accused is not required since the charge sheet is filed and if he is kept behind bar for a longer period his family members will loose the bread winner and would be ruined in the society and the petitioner is having greater responsibility to maintain them.
6. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against the accused after completion of the investigation done by him, that the accused No.1 who is alleged to have causing the injuries with means of sickle and there is no overt act attributed against this accused to commit murder of the deceased but there was a dispute between the complainant as well as the accused regarding the letting of water from Varada river. The petitioner herein is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court while granting bail to him. On all these grounds learned 7 counsel appearing for the petitioner is seeking for release of the petitioner on bail.
7. Per contra learned Govt. Pleader appear for the State has vehemently contended that on the filing of the complaint by the complainant case in Crime No. 7/2017 came to be registered against the accused Hebbalappa and another person namely Kallappa Hittalamani resident of Mellagatti village. The complainant is none other than the son of the deceased. It is based upon his complaint, case in Crime No. 7/2017 came to be registered for the offence punishable u/S 302 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. During the course of investigation the I.O. has recorded the statement of witnesses and so also conducted mahazar. But the petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.2. There is prima facie material against the accused as this accused was also played a role at the time of commission of the alleged offence by holding firmly the deceased and at that time the accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with means of sickle and caused injuries on the 8 back and chest part and the same is reflected in the PM report said to be issued by the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body. The sickle alleged to be used by the accused No.1 is seized by the I.O. in the presence of panch witnesses by conducting mahazar and the same has been produced by the accused No.1. Further, if the petitioner herein is released on bail, he would certainly come in the way of the prosecution and destroy the evidence. For all these grounds learned Govt. Pleader is seeking to reject the bail petition since the petitioner does not deserve for bail.
8. Having regard to the strenuous contentions taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and so also the learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the State relating to the case in Crime No. 7/2017 said to be registered by the Police it is based upon the complaint filed by the complainant who is none other than the son of the deceased. The complainant stated that the accused No.1 along with another person namely Kallappa Hittalamani resident of Mellagatti 9 might have murdered of his father relating to letting of water from Varada river to their respective lands. This fact is also reflected in the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner herein being the father in law of the accused No.1, is the resident of Lakkolli village of Mundagod Taluk and the same is reflected in the Aadhar Card. The said village is situated at a distance of 60 kms from Munnangi village, Savanur Taluk, Haveri District.
9. As already stated supra, name of this petitioner does not find place either in the FIR or in the complaint. Though the complainant who has specifically stated in the complainant that the accused No.1 and another person namely Kallappa Hittalamani of Mellagatti village are said to be having enragement against his father and also there was some dispute in between them and the complainant is having suspicion about these persons for having committing murder of his father. But the charge sheet is also laid against the petitioner herein arraying him as accused No.2. But the 10 material allegations reveals as this accused said to have firmly holding the deceased and the accused no.1 assaulted the deceased and committed his murder. These are all the allegations made in the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case, it is stated that, at this stage, it does not require any detail discussion while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioner herein. However, it is relevant to state that, charge sheet it is laid by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, he has secured material it is enough to proceed with the case against the accused by framing of charge and for trial for the offences alleged but the material in which secured by the Investigating Officer it cannot be said that it is enough material for declining the relief of bail as sought for by the petitioner herein. As this accused is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest and moreover he being the father in law of the accused No.1 as the grounds 11 urged by the counsel that there shall be the responsibility of the accused to lookafter the future of his unmarried daughter as well as his wife. The same shall be found to be justifiable. Whereas the learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the state who has vehemently contended that if the accused is released on bail he will come in the way of the prosecution case and destroy the evidence. This apprehension expressed by the learned Govt. Pleader could be curtailed by imposing 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 petitioner is deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER Bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed subject to the following conditions.
1) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a likesum 12 surety to the satisfaction of the learned First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Haveri, as where the case in S.C. No. 50/2017 arose out of Crime No. 7/2017 of Haveri Rural Police Station, is pending;
2) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall not tamper or hamper the case of the prosecution;
3) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall appear before the Court of law on all the dates of hearing without fail;
4) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall mark his attendance once in a month on first week on Sunday between 10 am and 5 pm before the concerned SHO, pending disposal of the entire case.
5) The petitioner/accused No.2 shall not indulgence with any criminal activities henceforth;
If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
SD/-
JUDGE bvv