Karnataka High Court
Madumangal Vitthaldas Kalantri vs State Of Karnataka on 17 August, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102093 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MADHUMANGAL VITTHALDAS KALANTRI
S/O. VITTHALDAS KALANTRI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. H.NO.664, VITTALDEVI GALLI
SHAHAPUR
BELAGAVI - 590 001 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ALONG WITH SRI AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BELAGAVI RURAL POLICE
BELAGAVI
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD - 580 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN
C.C.NO.278/2022 (CR.NO.38/2022) REGISTERED BY BELAGAVI
RURAL POLICE, BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 3143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, 109, 201, 213
2
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE JMFC-II COURT BELAGAVI.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.10 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.38/2022 registered by Belagavi Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, 109, 201, 213 read with 149 of IPC pending in C.C.No.278/2022 on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi and in S.C.No.138/2022 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of the alleged third wife of deceased Raju Doddabommanavar who filed complaint to the police on 15.03.2022 alleging that her husband was found murdered by some unknown persons for the unknown 3 reasons, the police registered the case for the aforesaid offences. During investigation, the accused persons are said to be remanded to judicial custody. After investigation, it is revealed that the deceased Raju Doddabommanavar said to be married accused No.1 who is said to be his second wife. He also his having the first wife. During the subsistence of two marriages, he also married third wife and was living with her. It is also alleged that accused Nos.2 and 3 said to be invested some amount to the deceased in the real estate business but the deceased cheated them. Accused Nos.1 to 3 conspired to commit the murder of the deceased. Accordingly, they consulted accused Nos.4 and 5 and they said to be introduced accused No.11 who is said to be a contract killer. Accordingly, accused No.11 said to be agreed to murder the deceased for Rs.10.00 lakhs as supari and accused Nos.1 and 2 said to be paid advance amount 4 for committing murder of the deceased. It is further alleged that accused Nos.9 and 11 said to be approached the petitioner seeking legal help that in case accused Nos.9 and 11 would be arrested, the petitioner should help them to come out on bail. The petitioner agreed to help accused Nos.9 and 11. Subsequently, on 15.03.2022, accused Nos.7 to 9 said to be committed murder of the deceased and the police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. The bail application of the petitioner came to be withdrawn on the previous occasion. Hence, this petition is filed on the additional grounds.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the alleged offence against the petitioner would attract Sections 212 and 213 of IPC, which is bailable in nature and there is no allegation against the petitioner of having committed or participated in the commission of murder. The 5 petitioner undertook to help accused No.11 if he was arrested by the police in the crime. The learned Senior counsel further contended that the alleged offence is bailable in nature punishable for five years and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of bail. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RASIKLAL Vs. KISHORE reported in (2009) 4 SCC 446
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader has seriously objected for the bail and contended that the petitioner ought to have intimated the police about the accused persons committing the murder of the deceased, but he has not informed the police and even the petitioner is said to have harboured the accused persons in the commission of murder. Therefore, Sections 212 and 213 of IPC is 6 not attracted and therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.
7. The main allegation goes against accused Nos.1 to 3 and they had conspired to commit murder of the deceased Raju Doddabommanavar. Accused Nos.1 to 3 said to be approached accused Nos.4 and 5 for assistance to commit murder. Therefore, accused Nos.4 and 5 said to be introduced accused No.11, who is said to be the contract killer. Accordingly, accused No.11 agreed to commit the murder of the deceased with supari for Rs.10.00 lakhs. Accused Nos.2 and 3 paid advance amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs and accused No.1 said to be paid Rs.1.00 lakh advance to accused No.11 who executed murder with the help of accused Nos.7 to 9. It is also said that accused Nos.7 and 9 7 approached the petitioner, who is said to be business man and sought help that in case if he is arrested, he would arrange advocates for getting bail for accused No.11. However, the petitioner also said to be demanded some share in the amount of supari. Though accused No.11 said to be agreed, but subsequently, on 15.3.2022 accused Nos.7 to 9 along with accused No.11 said to be committed the murder of the deceased.
8. The entire allegation goes against accused Nos.1 to 3 and other accused except the petitioner who is said to be harbouring the accused persons in not intimating the police about commission of offence by the accused which would attract Sections 212 or 213 of IPC which is punishable for imprisonment up to five years and as per classification to Sections 212 and 213 of IPC, they are bailable offence. Therefore, the offence alleged against the petitioner falls under 8 Section 213 of IPC and it is bailable in nature. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for bail.
9. Hence, I pass the following:
The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail in in Crime No.38/2022 registered by Belagavi Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, 109, 201, 213 read with 149 of IPC pending in C.C.No.278/2022 on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi and in S.C.No.138/2022 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Petitioner-accused No.10 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00.000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;
(ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;
(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;9
(iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial Court;
If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.
Sd/-
JUDGE CS