Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1384 (KAR)

Santosh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-07-10

ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Ashok G Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is f iled by accused No.1, under section 439 Cr.P.C. , seeking bail in Crime No.145/2019 of Bi lgi P.S. , S.C.No.17/2020, on the fi le of District and Sessions Court, Bagalkote, registered for the of fences punishable under sections 302, 201, 120B read with section 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that on the complaint fi led by mother of the deceased, the pol ice have registered the case. The al legations are that, on 20.10.2019, afternoon at about 2.30 p.m., her son Pavadeppa left the house, but he did not return in the evening. On enquiry, her relative Shrishai l informed that the complainant's son Pavadeppa and accused No.1 Santosh and Manjunath were going towards the river. On enquiry, the said accused did not inform anything. Later, on 23.10.2019 two persons by name Parasappa and Chandru informed that the dead body of her son Pavadeppa is floating in the river. On getting the said information the complainant and others went near the river and the dead body of her son, which was tied along with a stone with a wire was taken out from the river. Accused No.1 Santosh was having intimacy with complainant's daughter, for that reason the complainant's son had warned accused No.1. Therefore in order to take revenge, both accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed murder of Pavadeppa and thrown the dead body in the river to cause disappearance of the evidence. 3. On registering the complaint, the police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. The accused No.1 was arrested on 24.10.2019. Since then he is in judicial custody. The bail petition fi led before the Sessions Court is rejected. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent State. Perused the charge sheet records. 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that accused No.2 has been granted bai l by the Sessions Court, against whom the same al legations have been made by the prosecution. Accused No.1 being on the same footing is entitled to bai l on the ground of parity. There are no eye witnesses or direct evidence. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The investigation is completed, as such the presence of the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. Accused No.1 being on the same footing is entitled to bai l on the ground of parity. There are no eye witnesses or direct evidence. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The investigation is completed, as such the presence of the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. Due to the detention, the petitioner is put to hardship. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that CW.18 to CW.21 are the persons who have seen accused Nos.1 and 2 going along with the complainant's son Pavadeppa. According to their version, both accused had taken the deceased victim with them, which clearly goes to prove the last seen theory. As per the information disclosed by the accused, the wire used for strangulating the victim has been seized. There is clinching evidence to prove the involvement of the accused. Thus, the Sessions Court has rightly rejected the bai l application. 7. As could be seen from the charge sheet records, there are no eye witnesses. The entire case is based on the last seen theory and circumstantial evidence. The complainant has stated that her son had warned accused No.1 Santosh as he had intimacy with his sister. But there is no mention about any rivalry or strong motive. 8. Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. The dead body of the victim was found in the river after three days. The said dead body was not recovered at the instance of the accused. In the medical reports it is stated that the dead body was tied to a big stone, but according to the prosecution version it was floating. At this stage it is needless to make elaborate discussion or to give any f inding as the same is not permissible while considering the bai l appl ication. 9. The Sessions Judge has granted bai l to accused No.2 who is said to have joined with accused No.1 in committing the murder of the deceased. But the bail petition of accused No.1 is rejected on the ground that he is likely to tamper the prosecution witnesses. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no rivalry whatsoever between accused No.1 and the deceased victim. But the bail petition of accused No.1 is rejected on the ground that he is likely to tamper the prosecution witnesses. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no rivalry whatsoever between accused No.1 and the deceased victim. Since the investigation is completed, there are no chances of interfering with the investigation. The petitioner/accused is wil l ing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. 10. It is wel l settled principle that the gravity of the of fences al leged alone cannot be a ground to reject the bai l. In a decision between Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) CriLJ 883 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "The considerations which normal ly weigh wi th the Cour t in granting bail in non-bailable of fences are the nature and seriousness of offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are pecul iar to the accused; a reasonable possibil i ty of the presence of the accused not being secured at the tr ial ; reasonable apprehension of wi tnesses being tampered wi th; the larger interest of the publ ic or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case." 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel , this Court is of the view that accused No.1 is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. The objection of the prosecution regarding tampering with the prosecution witnesses may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition fi led under section 439 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shal l be released on bai l in Crime No.145/2019 of Bi lgi P.S. , now pending in S.C.No.17/2020, on the f i le of District and Sessions Court, Bagalkote, subject to the fol lowing conditions. i) The petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) with two sureties for the l ike sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. ii ) The petitioner shal l not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. ii i) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission, til l the disposal of the case. ii ) The petitioner shal l not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. ii i) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission, til l the disposal of the case. iv) The petitioner shal l mark his attendance before the concerned pol ice station on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., ti l l conclusion of the trial . If the petitioner/accused violates any of the conditions, the bai l order automatical ly stands cancel led.