Karnataka High Court
Chandrakant Alias Kantu Hanamanth ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100119/2021
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAKANT @ KANTU
HANAMANTH BABALESHWAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCCUPATION: PRIVATE SERVICE
R/O SRASHTI NILAY, SAI PARK
VIJAYAPUR-586 109
TALUKA & DISTRICT - VIJAYAPUR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH P.S.I, MURGOD POLICE STATION
TALUKA-SAVADATT & DISTRICT-BELAGAVI
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 011.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE ON BAIL IN THE S.C.NO.381/2018
(MURGOD P.S. CRIME NO.93/2018), FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 120B, 364, 302, 201, 465,
468, 471, 482, 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE
THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDTE, BELAGAVI
2
RELEASE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.2, 3 AND 7 ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.214/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE (JR. DN) AND JMFC COURT, YELLAPUR, UTTARA KANNADA
DISTRICT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the State.
2. The case of the prosecution is that this petitioner engaged the services of accused Nos.2 and 3 to eliminate the deceased since he is having illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased.
3. This is a successive bail petition filed by accused No.1 and this Court earlier vide detail order dated 28.01.2019 rejected the bail petition filed by this petitioner. In the present petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the trial has already been commenced and material witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 6 are examined but they have not supported the case of the prosecution.
3
4. Learned counsel also relied upon the depositions of PW.1, who is CW.3; PW.2, who is CW.1; PW.3, who is CW.4; PW.4, who is CW.9; PW.5, who is CW.10; and PW.6, who is CW.13. CWs.5 and 6 have been dropped by the prosecution contending that these witnesses are not supporting the case of the prosecution. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have already been enlarged on bail in Crl.P.No.100608/2020.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for State would vehemently contend that the case though rests upon the circumstantial evidence, CW.23 speaks with regard to having paid the amount to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- to accused Nos.2 and 3 by accused No.1 and CW.22 had seen accused Nos.1 and 2 going along with the deceased and while returning, only accused Nos.1 and 2 came back whereas the deceased had not accompanied them and the said witness is a last seen witness. Those material witnesses have not been examined. This Court on the earlier occasion also rejected the bail petition on the ground that the CWs.22, 23, 16 and 17 are the material 4 witnesses and there are sound circumstances in support of the case.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for State and perused the material on record, witnesses CW.14 and 15 speaks with regard to the fact that they found both accused Nos.2 and 3 along with the deceased and witness CW.22 speaks with regard to illicit relationship between this petitioner and wife of the deceased. The witness CW.23 speaks for having made the payment to Supari, which has been witnessed by him and the witness CW.30 speaks with regard to conducting of post-mortem examination. Hence, the said witnesses are the material witnesses for the prosecution. When the material witnesses relied upon by the prosecution have not been examined before this Court, this Court only by considering the evidence of CWs.1 to 6, cannot exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner for granting the bail. The petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court after examination of these witnesses, as the witnesses examined before the Court are not 5 the material witnesses as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE PYR