Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1314 (KAR)

Harikrishna v. State

2020-07-03

N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

body2020
JUDGMENT N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. - This matter is taken up through Video Conference today. 2. Learned counsel Sri Muzaffar Ahmed, for petitioner and Sri K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for respondent are present in both the cases. 3. These two petitions are filed in Crl.P.No.2992/2020 and 2133/2020 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail arising out of Cr.No.35/2020 in the event of their arrest as both the cases are connected to the same crime numbers, they are taken up together for common disposal. 4. These are the two petitions filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner in each of the cases seek grant of bail in Crime No.35/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC of the respondent Police Station. 5. The date of complaint is 14.02.2020 . 6. Previously, the petitioners had made application before the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in Crl.Misc.Nos.335/2020 and 336/2020 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. respectively and the said cases came to be dismissed on 11.03.2020. 7. Copy of the petitions is served on learned HCGP for respondent. 8. Heard. 9. The substance of the case is extracted from the certified copy of the order passed in Crl.Misc.Nos.335/2020 and 336/2020 is as under: "The brief facts of prosecution case are that there were several quarrels between the husband of the complainant by name deceased Singanamale Madhav on one side and his younger brother and younger son on the other side about division of family properties. On 14.02.2020 at 09-30 a.m. the friend of deceased Singanamale Madhav by name Mohammed called him over phone and in order to talk with said Mohammed, the deceased Singanamale Madhav at about 10-30 a.m. has left the house saying to his wife that he will talk with his friend and returned back to home. However, on the same day at 1-30 p.m. one Jayaram the security guard of Raja Enclave visited the house of the complainant and informed her about dead body of her husband Singanamale Madhav on Gubbalala main road near Mantri Tranquil Apartment attached to Royals Palms gate. Immediately, the complainant has visited the spot, found dead body of her husband with pool of blood. She has also noticed cut of neck of her husband with sharp weapon. Immediately, the complainant has visited the spot, found dead body of her husband with pool of blood. She has also noticed cut of neck of her husband with sharp weapon. Accordingly, the complainant has lodged complaint raising suspicious on her younger son and younger brother of her husband about murder of her husband. Based upon the said complaint, the respondent police have registered the F.I.R. and have undertaken the investigation." 10. The deceased in the case is one Singanamale Madhav. There were differences between the brother and the son of the deceased on one side and Singanamale Madhav on the other side regarding division of the properties. 11. It was on 14.02.2020, at about 09:30 a.m. friend of deceased Singanamale Madhav by name Mohammed called him over phone and in order to talk with him, Singanamale Madhav left the house at 10:30 a.m. and had told his wife that he would talk with his friend and come back. 12. He did not return even after 01:30 p.m. One Jayaram the security guard of Raja Encalve came to the house of the complainant and informed her that the dead body of her husband - Singanamale Madhav was abandoned at Gubbalal main road near Mantri Tranquil Apartment attached to Royals Palms gate. Immediately, she rushed to the spot and saw the dead body lying in pool of blood and it was of her husband with neat cut mark on the neck and other parts of the body. She suspected about her younger son and younger brother of deceased and accordingly, lodged the complaint. 13. On 14.02.2020, at about 03:30 p.m. a case was registered in Cr.No.35/2020, for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. FIR came to be registered against (1) Shivaram brother of the husband of the complainant (2) Harikrishna son of the complainant (3) and others. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they did not have antecedents of criminal background. There are no eye witness in the case and not even the informant who brought the notice of the fact to the complainant. The names are mentioned in the complaint out of sheer emotion, anger and suspicion. The apprehension of the petitioners is well founded. He would further submits that the family of the petitioners are put to frustration because of the absence of the petitioners. The names are mentioned in the complaint out of sheer emotion, anger and suspicion. The apprehension of the petitioners is well founded. He would further submits that the family of the petitioners are put to frustration because of the absence of the petitioners. They are ready to offer surety and abide by such conditions to be imposed by this court and hence, seeks for anticipatory bail. 15. Learned Government Pleader for respondent opposes the bail petitions of the petitioners seriously and submits that some of the accused persons have been arrested and details are yet to be collected. 16. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases also brings to the Court's notice that there is no whisper of names either of the petitioners in the statement and there are no incriminating circumstances or grounds to arrest them and there shall not be material mistakes. 17. Learned HCGP would submit that because of the absence of the petitioners, the investigation is not going at regular intervals. 18. The relief sought by the petitioners is for grant of anticipatory bail in Cr.No.35/2020. The petitioner in Crl.P.Nol.2992/2020 is Harikrishna - accused No.2 is the son of deceased and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2133/2020 is one S.Shivaramprasad - accused No.1 is none other than brother of the deceased. Thus, accused persons are nothing but sibling and off-spring of the deceased. 19. It was also submitted by learned HCGP that the petitioners would abscond from process of law and if they are enlarged on bail, investigation will come to halt because of the absconding of the present accused persons. 20. In the circumstances, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there are chances of they may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and destory the evidence as well. 21. The investigation is stated to be pending. Case is appears to be based on circumstantial evidence as well, wherein, the existence or nonexistence of different circumstances are to be reckoned for the trial of the case. 22. Thus, I find incase, the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, there are every likelihood of interference to the investigation and it would come to a stand still. I find that there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases would submit that the petitioners have filed application in Fr.Crl.P.No.2257/2020. However, the same was withdrawn. I find that there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases would submit that the petitioners have filed application in Fr.Crl.P.No.2257/2020. However, the same was withdrawn. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.