Karnataka High Court
Shri Dilip S/O Parasharam Waddar vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 June, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18 T H DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101041 OF 2021
BETWEEN
1 . S HRI DILI P S/ O PARASHARAM W ADDAR
AGE. 29 YEARS , OCC. MASON
R/O. HONNA LLI , T Q. KAGAL,
DIST. KOLHA PUR- 416216
2 . VIKAS S/O. VA KIL PATIL
AGE. 25 YEARS , OCC. AGRI CULT URE,
R/O. KHEBWAD E V ILLAGE,
TQ.KARAVEER, DI ST. KOLHA PUR- 416003
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT : NAGARA THNA S PATTAR,A DV,)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE PSI NIPPANI
R/BY STATE PUBLI C PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BENCH, D HARWAD
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING THAT BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION
THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.3 AND 4 MAY
PLEAS E BE RELEA SED ON BAIL, IN NIPPANI RURAL PS
CRIME NO.94/ 2020 F OR THE OFF ENCES PUNISHABLE
U/S 143, 147, 120B, 302, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF XII ADD ITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELA GAVI, S ITTING AT GOKAK
INCHARGE COURT VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSI ONS
JUDGE, BELA GAVI, SITTING AT CHIK KODI.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 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.94/2020 of Nippani Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 120B, 302, 201 R/W Section 149 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).
2. It is the case of the prosecution that PSI Nippani Rural Police Station has filed the complaint. The said PSI was investigating the missing complaint registered in Nippanni Rural Police Station Crime No.86/2020 regarding missing of one Vishal @ Appaso Mahesh Patil filed by accused No.1 Satish Patil who is his nephew. During investigation of the said missing 3 complaint, the Police came to know that said Vishal was driving the Ertiga VDI Car bearing registration No.MH-12/NE-9905 owned by his relative Abhijeet Desai for his livelihood. The said vehicle was found in the limits of Sangola Police Station limits of Maharastra State, Dist:Solapur in an unclaimed condition. After verification of the registration documents which were kept in the said car the Police came to know who the name of the owner of the said car. The Police contacted the original owner by name Abhijeet Desai. The Police brought the said vehicle and its related documents. The Police asked the complainant who has filed the missing complaint for enquiry, he did not appear. Therefore, the Police went to his house and started interrogation and he did not gave proper answer and therefore, he was brought to Police Station and during enquiry he disclosed that deceased Vishal was four months baby, 4 his father who is the elder brother of complainant by name Mahesh died in 1995 in road accident and after one year of his death, his wife Uma also died due to ill health and hence the complainant, his mother and wife looked after said Vishal. The said Vishal was demanding share in the property saying that he would live on his own and though he was advised not to do so, he was objecting and therefore the complainant decided to murder him by spending money and by throwing his dead body without making known to anybody. The accused No.1 was searching for the persons to murder the said Vishal since about one month and when he was talking with accused No.2- Amol wherein accused No.1 Satish Patil proposed about the murder of the said Vishal and therefore the accused No.2/Amol told that his relatives i.e. Petitioner/accused Nos.3 and 4 and accused No.5 Babasaheb Pandurang Kamble and they will murder. 5 The accused No.2 demanded Rs.6,00,000/- from petitioner/accused No.1. Accused No.1 Satish who was complainant about missing of said Vishal agreed and he paid cash of Rs.1,50,000/- as advance to accused No.2/Amol. Accused No.2 brought accused Nos.3 and 5 to the house of accused No.1 and introduced them and he paid balance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and they told him to bring Vishal on 27.09.2020. On 27.09.2020 at about 7.00 a.m. it is alleged that all the accused came to the house of accused No.1/Satish to whom he told to hide in the shed situated beside his house. Thereafter, at about 8.00 a.m. the deceased Vishal came with his car and parked it in front of the house of the accused No.1 /Satish. Accused No.1/Satish told Vishal to help him to put the fertilizer bag by standing besides the shed and when said Vishal entered in the said shed, the remaining accused persons who were already there 6 dragged said Vishal inside the shed and accused No.1/Satish told to kill him and the accused No.2 made Vishal fall down by dragging and closed his mouth by hands and accused No.4 held his legs and accused No.5 Babasaheb held the hands and thereafter the accused No.1 Satish and accused No.3 Dilip together strangulated and after little bit time Vishal died and the accused by confirming the death put the dead body in a gunny bag and put it in the said car of Vishal which was brought by accused No.4/Vikas in front of the said shed and all the accused except the accused No.1 took the dead body and the accused No.1 went to his house and took bath and when his mother asked where was Vishal, he acted in such a way that his mother should not suspect and therefore the remaining accused telephoned to the accused No.1/Satish that they threw the dead body in a ghat in another village limits 7 of Gaganbhavda Taluka in Kolhapur District and parked the said car near Junoni village, Yamayi lake. The said complaint was registered in Crime No.94/2020 of Nippani Rural Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 120(B), 302, 201 r/w Section 149 IPC. The investigating officer has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 120B, 302, 201 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The accused Nos.3 and 4 have filed Crl.Misc.No.5249/2021 and it came to be rejected by VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at: Chikodi by order dated 05.05.2021. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State.
8
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are innocent, they have not committed any offence as alleged against them and they have been falsely implicated in the case. The accused No.2 came to be implicated on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.1 and the present petitioners were implicated on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.2. Except voluntary statement, there is no material evidence against the petitioners. The dead body of the deceased has not been found. What is found is only skull and lower jaw. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is his further submission that since investigation is already completed and petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation. The petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this 9 Court and ready to furnish surety. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the offence alleged against the petitioners is heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The accusations leveled against the petitioners/accused No.4 is that he caught hold the legs of the deceased and against accused No.5 is that he hold the hands of the deceased and accused No.3 strangulated the deceased and killed him. The skull and lower jaw along with gunny bag used to transfer the dead body have been recovered at the instance of petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 and accused No.5. Apart from cash of Rs.93,000/- recovered from accused No.3 and Rs.96,000/- recovered from accused No.4 out of their share of Rs.1,50,000/- each. The skull and blood sample of accused No.1 have been sent for DNA test and report 10 is awaited. On perusal of the charge sheet, there is sufficient material against the petitioners for having committed the alleged offence. If petitioners are granted with bail, they will tamper 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 petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
7. The accusation leveled against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 and accused No.5 is that they have been hired by accused No.1. through accused No.2 to kill the deceased Vishal for consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-. The accused secured the deceased Vishal in a shed behind the house of accused No.1 wherein accused No.4 caught hold the 11 legs and accused No.5 held the hands and accused No.3 strangulated him and accused Nos.2 to 5 took the dead body in a gunny bag and thrown the dead body in a ghat in another village limit of Gaganbhavda Taluka in Kolhapur District and parked the said car near Junoni village, Yamayi lake and informed the same to accused No.1. There are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Except recovery of skull, lower jaw and gunny bag shown by petitioners and accused No.5 and recovery of cash from the petitioners, there are no material witnesses. As the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstance. Whether the skull found is of the deceased Vishal has yet to be ascertained as DNA report is still awaited. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioners are not required for any custodial interrogation. The main 12 objection of the prosecution is that if the petitioners are granted with bail, they will tamper prosecution witnesses, the said objection may be set right by imposing some 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 terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 shall be released on bail in Crime No.94/2020 of Nippani Rural Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees 13 one lakh only) each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE H MB