Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1190 (KAR)

Mallappa S/o Hanumavva v. State of Karnataka

2017-09-01

N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent police. 2. The complaint was lodged on 29.03.2017 at 6.00 p.m. by Kodleppa S/o Bullappa Hirekurubar by stating that on 25.03.2017 in the afternoon Chennappa son of the complainant left Sheelahalli on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-36/EF-2109, but he did not return home. Despite search, he was not traced. On previous day of lodging the complaint, the complainant along with his second son Sharanappa went in search of Chennappa to Eachnal where they noticed the motorcycle of his son Chennappa in-front of the house of Gaddeppa, a friend of his son. On enquiry it was revealed that on 25.03.2017 at Lingasugur both Chennappa and Gaddeppa consumed liquor and Chennappa collected Rs.600/- and went towards Kasaba Lingasugur and asked Gaddeppa to leave the motorcycle at his house. On 29.03.2017 the complainant lodged report regarding missing of his son in the afternoon. On the same day complainant got the information over phone that a dead body was found at Narayanpur canal and when the complainant saw that dead body was floating in the water, it was masked by plastic cover from top of the body up to waist and when dead body was unmasked, the complainant came to know that it was the dead body of his son and there was injury appearing to have been caused either on being strangulate or caused with a sharp edged weapon. 3. Thus, the complainant does not know who killed his son but suspects that Gaddeppa, friend of his son murdered latter and caused the disappearance the evidence. He has thrown the dead body in to the canal of water. Thus, the complaint that was filed on 29.03.2016 was only against accused No.1. 4. The case is charge sheeted against four persons for the offences punishable under sections 120(B), 302 and 201 R/w Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 2 to 4. 5. The facts of the case as stated in column No.17 of the charge sheet are that Chennappa son of the complainant had a friend who is accused No.1Sanna Gaddeppa alias Gaddeppa and he used to visit the house of accused No.1 frequently and accused No.2 – Mallappa, accused No.3 Basappa and accused No.4 Gaddeppa are the relatives of accused No.1. The facts of the case as stated in column No.17 of the charge sheet are that Chennappa son of the complainant had a friend who is accused No.1Sanna Gaddeppa alias Gaddeppa and he used to visit the house of accused No.1 frequently and accused No.2 – Mallappa, accused No.3 Basappa and accused No.4 Gaddeppa are the relatives of accused No.1. Channappa was teasing CW.24 daughter of accused No.3 and also was touching her at in appropriate places whenever he met her. In this context, the matter aggravated and CW24 told the matter to her father accused No.3, who informed it to other accused and it was on 25.03.2017 at 11.45 p.m. at Eachanal village, the accused persons secured him to Chennappa to the land Sy.No.81(3) and he was made to consume liquor and accused No.1 asked other accused to hold Chennappa and it was accused No.4 stood on the legs of Chennappa, accused No.2 switched on the battery, then accused No.1 hit by axe on the neck of Chennappa, accused No.2 hit with club, accused No.3 was about to hit Chennappa with sickle, he found that Chennappa was already dead. Thus it is claimed that accused persons have committed the murder of Chennappa on 25.03.2017 in the land Sy.No.81/3 and case was registered in Crime No.113/2017 of respondent-Police for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302 and 201 R/W Section 34 IPC. 6. The petitioners herein are accused No.2 to 4. The arrest of the accused No.1 to 4 was said to be as under: Accused No.1 was arrested on 03.04.2017. Accused No.2 was arrested on 05.04.2017. Accused No.3 was arrested on 03.04.2017. Accused No.4 was arrested on 03.04.2017. 7. The learned HCGP opposes the bail application on the ground that it is a premeditated murder, as the victim was offered alcohol and was killed by accused persons No.1 to 4 and they attempted to cause disappearance of evidence. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners never had any role to attribute that they are offenders. Investigation is over, final report was filed, there was no likelihood of petitioners hampering the investigation and if they are enlarged on bail, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution. 9. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners never had any role to attribute that they are offenders. Investigation is over, final report was filed, there was no likelihood of petitioners hampering the investigation and if they are enlarged on bail, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution. 9. In the context and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution or its case, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail. However, the apprehensions of the prosecution could be resolved by imposing suitable conditions. Hence the, ORDER Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bailin Cr.No.113/2017 (CC No.319/2017) of Lingasugur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 302 and 201 R/W Section 34 IPC with the following: Conditions 1. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two solvent sureties possessing immovable property for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioners shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. 3. The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the investigating officer on every Saturday between 9.00 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. till further orders by the learned trial Judge. 4. The petitioners shall not leave the Raichur district without permission of the Committal Court/Trial Court.