Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 52 (KAR)

SANTOSH SHANKARRAO BADIGER v. STATE

2017-01-05

B.A.PATIL

body2017
ORDER : B.A. PATIL, J. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No. 50/2016 of Chitaguppa Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 342, 504, 323, 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. The brief factual matrix of the case that emanate from the records are that the petitioners are the residents of Hallikhed village within the jurisdiction of Chitaguppa police station. The complaint came to be lodged by one Revansiddappa s/o Anneppa Hunachgera of Hallikhed stating that his brother Sangamesh had developed illicit intimacy with a lady by name Jaishree w/o Shivakumar Panchal. The accused persons who are close relatives of said Jaishree were not happy with the illegal intimacy between Jaishree and Sangamesh. It is stated that accused namely, Nagaraj and Santosh were waiting for an opportunity. It is particularly stated that on 12.03.2016 at about 11.30 p.m., Sangamesh (deceased) went to the house of Jaishree and this was seen by the accused persons. In fact, the accused Nagaraj had seen Sangamesh going inside the house of Jaishree and he went to that house and latched the door from outside. Thereafter secured the presence of the other accused persons by name Santosh and also Shantkumar. Thereafter they opened the door of the house and went inside the house. In fact, the deceased Sangamesh hid himself underneath a cot. At that time, the accused persons asked him to come out and in spite of he requesting to leave him, the accused persons have started assaulting him. It is alleged in the complaint that Nagaraj and Santosh have brought kerosene and poured on Sangamesh and lit fire on him. Shantkumar has assaulted the deceased on his cheek. They also made attempts to kill Jaishree, however she escaped from their clutches and went to the house of Gouramma. It is further case of the prosecution that the injured was taken to the hospital and dying declaration of the deceased was recorded and complaint came to be registered against the accused persons. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence alleged against him. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence alleged against him. The allegation made against the petitioner is that he has brought kerosene can and handed over the same to accused No. 1 who poured the same on the deceased-Sangamesh and lit fire. It is contended that accused No. 2 has already been released on bail by this Court. The petitioner also stands on the same footing as that of accused No. 2 who has already been released on bail therefore, even on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. It is further contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that there are eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. It is contended that the petitioner has brought kerosene can and he has poured the same on the deceased and lit fire and active role is played by this petitioner. It is also contended that the incident has taken place inside the house only with a common intention to kill the deceased-Sangamesh. Even the dying declaration recorded by the Tahsildar would substantiate the case of the prosecution. At this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and there is likelihood of he being absconded and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition. I have also perused other charge-sheet material which has been made available by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments. 7. The records disclose the fact that the accused persons are close relatives of CW.6-Jaishree and they were not happy with the illegal intimacy between Jaishree and Sangamesh. I have also perused other charge-sheet material which has been made available by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments. 7. The records disclose the fact that the accused persons are close relatives of CW.6-Jaishree and they were not happy with the illegal intimacy between Jaishree and Sangamesh. When Jaishree and the deceased were in the house, accused No. 1 taking advantage of that has latched the door from outside and thereafter, he came along with other accused persons and assaulted him. Thereafter, accused Nos. 2 and 3 brought kerosene can and handed over the same to accused No. 1 who poured the same on Sangamesh and lit fire. 8. On going through the records, it clearly indicates that it is accused Nos. 2 and 3 who have brought kerosene can and handed over the same to accused No. 1 and in turn, accused No. 1 poured the same on Sangamesh and lit fire. Therefore, the petitioner has only acted for bringing the kerosene can and he has not actively participated in pouring kerosene and letting fire. As could be seen from the dying declaration, the deceased-Sangamesh has made omnibus allegations against all the accused persons. Apart from this, as could be seen from the records, accused No. 2 had filed a similar bail petition before this Court and this Court by order dated 27.04.2016 enlarged him on bail by imposing stringent conditions. In that light, I feel that when this petitioner also stands on the same footing as that of accused No. 2, the petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that if the petitioner is released on bail by imposing stringent conditions, it would safeguard the interest of the prosecution and it would meet the ends of justice. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No. 3 is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No. 3 is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses; (iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required; (iv) The petitioner shall regularly appear before the Trial Court on all the dates of hearing without fail.