Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1664 (KAR)

Lingaraj @ Rimya @ Rima v. State Of Karnataka

2020-09-02

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.93/2018 of Murgod Police Station registered for the offence punishable under 109, 120(B), 364, 302, 201, 465, 468, 471, 482, 420 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Smt. Sonubai W/o Praveen Naik of Basavanabagewadi alleging that they are the owners of the Logan Car and it is a taxi her husband is driving the said car. ON 13.03.2018 at about 7.00 p.m. her husband received a phone call for hiring their car to go to Goa and at about 11.00 p.m. her husband informed that they were going to Goa and till 15.03.2018 her husband was in contact with her. Lastly her husband called her stating that he is near Yaragatti, there after his mobile phone was switched off. She intimated the same to her brother-in-law and her mother. On 17.03.2018 the complainant received phone call from her brother-in-law and informed that her husband was murdered near Halaki village. Thereafter she went to the spot and identified the dead body of her husband and she lodged compliant before the Murgod Police. Murgod Police have registered the case in Crime No.93/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 120(B), 364, 302, 201, 465, 468, 471, 482, 420 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. During the course of investigation the petitioners and another person accused No.1 were arrested on 27.03.2018. Investigation Officer after investigation filed charge sheet and now case is pending on the file of 9th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in SC No.381/2018. The charges in SC No.381/2018 were framed on 17.10.2019 and most of the material witnesses were examined till 04.03.2020. The petitioner filed bail application before 9th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Crl.Misc.No.158/2020 and the same came to be rejected on 22.05.2020. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking bail. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitionersaccused Nos.2 and 3 and learned HCGP for respondent- State. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 that petitioners are in judicial custody since 27.03.2018. It is his further submission that trial is commenced and material witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 that petitioners are in judicial custody since 27.03.2018. It is his further submission that trial is commenced and material witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is his further submission that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is his further submission that there is no motive for petitioners to commit the murder of the deceased. It is his further submission that in view of the present circumstance of Covid-19 there are no chances of completing the trial in a short period. With this he prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP contended that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are supari killers. It is his further submission that CW-14 and 15 are two witnesses who have last seen the deceased with accused Nos.2 and 3 who are petitioners herein. It is his further submission that the accused No.2 has made a extra judicial confession before the CW-20 and his statement has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate. It is his further submission that CW-23-Kallappa Vittal Guddad is the another witness who has heard the talks between the accused Nos.1 to 3, wherein accused No.1 has asked accused Nos.2 and 3 to kill the deceased and he will pay Rs.50,000/- to them. It is his further submission that CW- 19 is another witness wherein accused Nos.2 and 3 have purchased the water bottles from his shop to wash the blood on their face. It is his further submission that if the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are granted with bail, they will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he prays to reject the bail petition. 6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. As per charge sheet material, petitioner-accused No.1 has given supari of Rs.50,000/- to petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 to kill deceased Praveen as he had a illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. Case of the prosecution is only based on circumstantial evidence. As per charge sheet material, petitioner-accused No.1 has given supari of Rs.50,000/- to petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 to kill deceased Praveen as he had a illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. Case of the prosecution is only based on circumstantial evidence. The last seen of the deceased with the petitioners and the petitioner-accused No.2 making extra judicial confession are the weak kind of evidence and require corroboration. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the trial is commenced and material witnesses have been examined and therefore, there is no question of tampering the prosecution evidence. 7. It is well settled that matters to be considered in an application for bail are: (i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses, may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. 8. In a decision in the case of DATARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARA PRADESH AND ANOTHER, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Hon ble Apex Court held as under: A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 9. In the present case the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are in judicial custody since more than two years five months. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are residing in the address shown in the cause title and it is not disputed. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of grant of bail, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are likely to cause threat to the complainant and prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing some stringent conditions. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that there are valid grounds for grant of bail subject to conditions. Hence, I pass the following. ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 shall be released on bail in Crime No.93/2018 of Murgod Police Station, subject to the following conditions. i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) each with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. In view of the Covid-19 petitioners are permitted to furnish sureties within two months. If circumstances arise, jurisdictional court is permitted to extend the time for furnishing sureties. ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iii) The petitioners shall mark their attendance in jurisdictional Police Station between 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on first Sunday of every month till disposal of the case. If circumstances arise, jurisdictional court is permitted to extend the time for furnishing sureties. ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses in any manner. iii) The petitioners shall mark their attendance in jurisdictional Police Station between 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on first Sunday of every month till disposal of the case. iv) The petitioners shall attend the Court regularly and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.