Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2173 (KAR)

State Of Karnataka v. Madan M P

2020-11-03

K.NATARAJAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K Natarajan, J. - This petition is filed by the State under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.,) for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.223/2019 dated 28.06.2019 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri in C.C.No.494/2019 (Crime No.20/2019) registered by Napoklu Police for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 392, 449 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Respondent served unrepresented. 3. Heard the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State. 4. Sri K.S. Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the trial Court passed the impugned judgment by granting bail to the respondent-accused even though the alleged offence is heinous one punishable under Sections 302, 392, 449 of IPC where the allegation against the accused was he has entered into the house of the deceased-Radha Bai and committed murder and snatched the gold ornaments which were recovered by the Police at the instance of the accused which clearly shows that there is a prima facie case against the accused for having committed the robbery and murder. Therefore, without considering the gravity of the offence, the learned Sessions Judge granted bail. Therefore, the bail order is required to be cancelled and the respondent-accused to be taken into custody. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition. 5. Perused the impugned order of bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2019 at about 6.30 p.m., accused is said to have illegally entered into the house of deceased- Radha Bai in order to commit robbery and murdered her by strangulating her and robbed the gold jewellery from the almirah which was pledged with the help of accused No.3 in SDJ Jewellery and Gems, Ittegegudu, Mysore and subsequently, it was recovered by the Police after arresting the accused on the voluntary statement. 7. The respondent-accused is said to be in the custody. 7. The respondent-accused is said to be in the custody. The investigation came to be transferred from one Police Station to another Police Station and the accused moved bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge and after filing the objection from learned Public Prosecution, the impugned order came to be passed by granting bail by imposing condition on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety and further condition that the accused shall not hold out any threat to the prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not involve himself in any criminal activities and he shall appear before the Court on all the hearing dates and he shall co-operate with the Court to dispose the matter. 8. On perusal of the order and arguments addressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader shows the trial Court has granted bail on the ground that the investigation already completed and charge-sheet has been filed. Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the offences under Sections 392 and 302 of IPC are heinous in nature. There is circumstantial evidence to show the involvement of the accused in this case. The jewellery of the deceased has been recovered at the instance of the accused which clearly shows that he is the culprit to commit murder. Therefore, the bail should be cancelled. Of course, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased died due to strangulation and the gold jewellery was found missing from the almirah in the house of the deceased. Subsequently, the accused was arrested by the Police and recovery also made through SDJ Jewellery and Gems, Ittegegudu, Mysore. On perusal of the arguments and on the case of the prosecution shows the entire prosecution case rest upon the circumstantial evidence. One of the circumstances is recovery of gold ornaments of the deceased at the instance of the accused. Of course, there is no eye-witness to the incident. Even if the recovery is proved, the trial Court by examining the panch witness and other witnesses has to prove the guilt of the accused by linking all the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that without going to the trial only based on the recovery, the bail should be cancelled. 9. On the other hand, absolutely there is no violation of the bail conditions passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that without going to the trial only based on the recovery, the bail should be cancelled. 9. On the other hand, absolutely there is no violation of the bail conditions passed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is not the case of accused against committing any similar offences and misusing the bail after granting the bail for the accused. No material placed on record to show the violation of any of the conditions passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles in the case of Abdul Basit @ Raju and others etc. vs Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another, (2015) 1 SCC(Cri) 257 , which is as under: "Under Chapter XXXIII, Section 439(1) empowers the High Court as well as the Court of Sessions to direct any accused person to be released on bail. Section 439(2) empowers the High Court to direct any person who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII of the Code be arrested and committed to custody, i.e the power to 3 of 9 cancel the bail granted to an accused person. Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are (1) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive." 11. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also laid down principles for cancellation of bail and rejection of bail in the case of State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411 , which is as under: "Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another, It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail already granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail Necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large by permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial." 12. On perusal of the record, absolutely there is no ingredient or the ground made out by the prosecution to cancel the bail of the accused on the ground of any violation of any conditions. The trial Court after considering the case on merit and based upon circumstantial evidence has rightly held that the accused cannot be put in jail as a measurement of punishment in the pre-trial stage. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.