Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2129 (KAR)

Ravi v. State of Karnataka

2019-11-04

ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

body2019
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in Crime No. 113/2018 of Alnavar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364, 302, 342, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in Spl. SC/ST No. 14/2019 pending on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad). 2. The facts briefly stated in the bail petition are that initially on the basis of the complaint filed by Kumari Vinaya who is the daughter of the deceased, Hirebagewadi Police have registered the case in PS Crime No. 142/2018. Thereafter, another FIR was registered in PS Crime No. 84/2018 at Dharwad Rural Police Station on the reason that the deceased was kidnapped from Dharwad Bus Stand, subsequently, FIR was registered by Alnavar Police in Crime No. 113/2018. After completion of investigation of the said case, the charge sheet was filed by the CPI, Dharwad Rural which is numbered as Spl. SC/ST No. 14/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364, 402, 201, 342 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complaint allegations are that accused Nos. 1 to 5 abducted/kidnapped the deceased Guruswamy Yadiapur from his house at Alnavar and forcibly got agreement of sale executed in their favour by threatening him. Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 to 5 illegally detained the deceased at Bagalkote and Belagavi. On 24.06.2018, the accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased and threw the dead body on the National Highway near Hirebagewadi Badekollamath area with an intention to cause disappearance of the evidence. On the basis of the information given by the police to the complainant about death of her father, Kumari Vinaya filed complaint before Hirebagewadi Police, thereafter, Alnavar Police have taken up investigation on the basis of the FIR registered at PS Crime No. 113/2018. During investigation, accused No. 1 was arrested on 16.02.2019, since then he is in judicial custody. The bail petition filed before the Sessions Court was rejected. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 1 and learned HCGP for the respondent-State, perused the charge sheet and other concerned records available at this stage. 4. During investigation, accused No. 1 was arrested on 16.02.2019, since then he is in judicial custody. The bail petition filed before the Sessions Court was rejected. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 1 and learned HCGP for the respondent-State, perused the charge sheet and other concerned records available at this stage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 1 submitted that the wife of the deceased had received money from several persons on the pretext of securing govt. jobs to them, but she failed to secure the jobs. Therefore, the persons who had given money insisted for repayment of the said amount. In that connection, accused Nos.2 to 5 got executed an agreement of sale in their favour from the deceased as security for repayment of the loan. It is contended that Accused No. 1 is only an attested witness to the said agreement of sale and he is brother of accused No. 3-Anasooya Sudhir Halemani. It is further contended that the petitioner/accused No. 1 has not played any role in either getting the document executed or in compelling/threatening the deceased to execute the said agreement of sale. Even though the agreement of sale was executed on 5.6.2018, no complaint was registered against accused No. 1 or other accused either by wife of the deceased or his daughter. Accused Nos.2, 5 and 7 who are the parties to the sale deed have been granted bail by the Sessions Court. Hence, the present accused No. 1 is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The charge sheet does not make out specific case against accused No 1 and his involvement in commission of the offence. Due to the detention, the petitioner/accused No. 1 has been put to great hardship. He is ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court for granting bail. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP while referring to the charge sheet records submitted that CW-29 and CW-30 are the eye-witnesses to the incident of assault done by accused Nos.2, 5 and 7. Motive for commission of the offence is that the wife of the deceased borrowed loan from several persons, in that connection, her husband was threatened to execute the agreement of sale. Thereafter, when the deceased failed to execute the sale deed, the accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased. Motive for commission of the offence is that the wife of the deceased borrowed loan from several persons, in that connection, her husband was threatened to execute the agreement of sale. Thereafter, when the deceased failed to execute the sale deed, the accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased. CW-29 and CW-30 have seen the incident of assault. CW-34 to CW-37 are the circumstantial witnesses who have stated the role played by accused No. 1. Hence, there is prima facie case against accused No. 1. Under these circumstances, there are no valid grounds to grant bail. In the event of granting bail, accused No. 1 is likely to abscond and to threaten the prosecution witnesses. 6. As could be seen from the complaint averments and statement of the wife of the deceased namely CW-32/Smt. Sumitra, it is evident that she had borrowed loan from several persons on the pretext of securing government jobs, but she failed to fulfill her obligation. Therefore, the persons who had given money for securing the jobs started insisting the deceased and his wife to return the money. According to the prosecution, this is the reason and motive for commission of the offence. On perusal of the charge sheet records, it is seen that CW-29 and CW-30 are the eye-witnesses who are none other than the children of accused No. 3-Anasooya Sudhir Halemani and assault was said to have been done at the house of accused No. 3. According to these two eye-witnesses, on 23.06.2018 at about 8.30 p.m., the petitioner/accused No. 1 and accused Nos.2, 5 and 7 picked up quarrel with the deceased in connection the financial transaction, when the deceased refused to execute the sale deed, accused No. 1-Ravi assaulted with hand-fist to the deceased's chest and face; another accused Shivakumar Basavantappa Naik strangulated the deceased from backside with lungi and pushed him down to the ground, then other accused No. 5-Shivanand and Accused No. 7-Mahesh strampled on his neck and pushed the deceased with lungi put on his neck. Thereafter, the deceased was taken by all these accused in the canter vehicle. 7. Whereas, CW-32-Sumitra who is the wife of the deceased has stated in her statement that the accused persons have kidnapped and committed the murder of the deceased with the help of weapons. The evidence of CW-32 discloses that on 5.6.2018, accused Nos. Thereafter, the deceased was taken by all these accused in the canter vehicle. 7. Whereas, CW-32-Sumitra who is the wife of the deceased has stated in her statement that the accused persons have kidnapped and committed the murder of the deceased with the help of weapons. The evidence of CW-32 discloses that on 5.6.2018, accused Nos. 1 to 5 kidnapped her husband and got executed the agreement of sale in their favour, but they illegally continued to detain him. In that connection, no complaint was filed by either wife of the deceased or daughter of the deceased. CW-34 to CW-37 are the circumstantial witnesses. As could be seen from the charge sheet records, no weapons have been seized. At this stage, it is needless to make detail discussion or elaborate documentation while considering the bail application as the same is not permissible. 8. It is pertinent to note that accused Nos. 2, 5 and 7 who are said to have played role in commission of the offence have been granted bail by the Sessions Court but the prosecution has not challenged the said order. In the instant case, the investigation is completed and no grounds are made out as to whether the presence of accused No. 1 is required for either identification parade or for further custodial interrogation. 9. The considerations which normally weigh with the Court in granting bail in non-bailable offences are-the nature and seriousness of offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present, the main objection of the learned HCGP is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner/accused No. 1 is likely to tamper the prosecution witnesses or cause threat to the complainant. The said objection may be set-right by imposing stringent conditions. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds made out by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that there are valid reasons for granting bail. Hence I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds made out by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that there are valid reasons for granting bail. Hence I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No. 1 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 113/2018 of Alnavar Police Station, (in Spl. SC/ST No. 14/2019 pending on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad), subject to following conditions: (i) The petitioner/accused No. 1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court/Sessions Court. (ii) The petitioner/accused No. 1 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner/accused No. 1 shall appear before the Trial Court/Sessions Court on all the future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner/accused No. 1 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court/Sessions Court without prior permission, till the disposal of the case. 11. Violation of the above conditions would result in cancellation of the bail automatically.