Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 562 (KAR)

Hanmanth v. State of Karnataka

2015-06-03

G.NARENDRA

body2015
ORDER : G. Narendra, J. 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking bail in Crime No. 287 of 2014 of Raibag Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case of the prosecution is that the relationship between the deceased and the accused 4 had soured due to business rivalry. It is stated that the deceased and accused 4 are cousins and both of them competing in the vegetable trade and that the accused 4 was suffering losses in his business because of the active involvement of the deceased in the cabbage trade which otherwise he was earning good profits. 2. It is further alleged that accused 4 decided to do away with the life of the deceased and accordingly engaged the accused 1 to 3 and gave them supari for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to do away with the life of the deceased. 3. It is alleged that on 14-9-2014, the deceased in the course of his cabbage business, collected a sum of Rs. 1,17,000/- from one Suresh Devmane in order to hand it over to one Balachandra Kichade. Thereafter he left for Ghataprabha Village where he consumed liquor with accused 1 and it is further alleged that from Ghataprabha, the deceased and accused 1 travelled to Raibag to see cabbage growing lands. From there, the deceased and accused 1 along with accused 2 and 3 had left for Raibag and it is alleged that from Raibag the deceased was taken to the jungle within the limits of Hubbarwadi Village and there, at about 8.30 p.m., it alleged that he has been done to death by strangulation. The family of the deceased had grown apprehensive and lodged a man missing complaint as the deceased failed to return even after the lapse of ten days. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case made out by the police is highly improbable and defies. He states that the case, as per the complaint lodged by the wife, is as follows: X X X 5. He further submits that even the complaint is lodged on unknown person and that the deceased has been murdered elsewhere and body has been thrown at the side where it was found. He would submit that if the complaint is taken as true then it discounts the presence of any eye-witness. He further submits that even the complaint is lodged on unknown person and that the deceased has been murdered elsewhere and body has been thrown at the side where it was found. He would submit that if the complaint is taken as true then it discounts the presence of any eye-witness. On the contrary, the prosecution has arrayed C.W. 24 as an eye-witness and the version of the eye-witness is that while he was returning to home at 8.30 p.m. he saw the accused 1 to 3 committing the offence and he has given a graphic description. One more aspect the learned Counsel would point out which would go to demonstrate that the eye-witness version is concocted is that, the body was found in a ditch about 34 meters away from the road and even assuming that the eye-witness have travelled at that time he could not have seen the person as the accused would have been below the ground level and it would not have been possible to see the petitioner and especially that too at the night hours at 8.30 p.m. He would also point out that there is no public lighting system in the surrounding area and he would state that the version of the eye-witnesses has to be discounted and disbelieved. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial has not yet commenced and he would submit that observation would affect a fair trial. 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader would also submit that it would not be appropriate for him to rely and explain on the evidentiary material as it could have a bearing on the ensuing trial. Be that as it may. The contention of the petitioner's Counsel merits consideration. The complaint and the eye-witness's statement prima facie appear to contradict one and another. It would be improper to comment on the veracity or authenticity of either the complaint or the eye-witnesses version. But, the circumstances do not inspire confidence of this Court. It is seen that a person was missing for 10 days and the complainant being the wife of the deceased does not even name the accused 4 or suspect his involvement. Even eye-witnesses do not blame accused 4 and the prosecution version is based only on the statement of voluntary confession of the accused. It is seen that a person was missing for 10 days and the complainant being the wife of the deceased does not even name the accused 4 or suspect his involvement. Even eye-witnesses do not blame accused 4 and the prosecution version is based only on the statement of voluntary confession of the accused. The present petition is by the second accused, as stated earlier, the complaint does not inspire confidence of this Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail, subject to: (i) Petitioner executing a self-bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and also furnishing two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses or evidence. (iii) The petitioner shall not try to influence the complainant or otherwise. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without the prior permission of the Trial Court. (v) The petitioner shall attend the Court on all hearing dates. The observation regarding the merits of the case made hereinabove are made for the limited purpose of considering the bail application only and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the above observation and shall independently consider and dispose of the case on merits. The above criminal petition is ordered accordingly.