Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 739 (KAR)

Basappa v. State

2020-03-17

K.NATARAJAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K. Natarajan, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in Crime No. 186/2019 of Vijayapura Rural Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution is that complaint has been filed by Smt. Padmawati w/o deceased Sadashiv on 11.09.2019. It is alleged in the complaint that on 10.09.2019 her husband went out of the house and did not return back. By next date one Appashi the owner of Devant Dhaba came and informed that, her husband found murder backside of his Dhaba. Thereafter, complaint registered against unknown person for the alleged offence under Section 302 of IPC by the police. 3. During the investigation the police have arrested the petitioner on 12.09.2019 and voluntary statement has been recorded. Accused confessed the commission of the offence. The bloodstained cloths and stone recovered, by the police under panchanama. The petitioner produced before the Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody. The police have filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Absolutely, there is no other material produced on record to show that the petitioner has committed the offence. He has been arrested only on the previous enmity that the deceased was involved in murder of one Mallappa the brother of this petitioner. On this background the police have filed the charge sheet. There is no direct evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 06 months. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions, which may impose by this Court. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail petition seriously contending that the offence is very heinous in nature. Accused has committed murder of the deceased-Sadashiv on the previous enmity that the deceased was involved in murder of one Mallappa the brother of this petitioner. The owner of the Dhaba given statement and one CW. 9-Basavaraj s/o Bhimarao Shegunashi also given statement that accused moving around the deceased on the day of Moharam procession. Accused has committed murder of the deceased-Sadashiv on the previous enmity that the deceased was involved in murder of one Mallappa the brother of this petitioner. The owner of the Dhaba given statement and one CW. 9-Basavaraj s/o Bhimarao Shegunashi also given statement that accused moving around the deceased on the day of Moharam procession. That itself shows that accused followed the deceased on the date of incident. That apart the bloodstained cloths and stone were recovered at the instant of accused, which clearly goes to show that the petitioner has committed murder of the deceased. The offence is punishable with death and imprisonment for life. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, no doubt the police have registered the case against unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. On perusal of first information of the complainant which goes to show that she has not suspected on anybody except receiving information of murder from CW. 10 Appashi. The said Appashi is the Dhaba owner given statement to the police that the deceased came to his Dhaba at 10.30 p.m. for taking food, but he refused the same saying that his Dhaba is closed due to Moharam festival. Then deceased stated that he got tired and will sleep behind the Dhaba. But in the morning he found dead. He further stated that except seeing the deceased by him in the night and the deceased was found dead in the morning. CW. 9-Basavaraj Shegunashi whose statement goes to show that accused found around the deceased during Moharam procession. Except the same, he has not stated anything. The deceased was murdered due to previous enmity with regard to murder of one Mallappa the brother of the accused by the deceased on 07.02.2017. Except the statements, there is nothing on record to show that accused was directly involved in the commission of offence. The petitioner has produced the bloodstained cloths. The bloodstained cloths were sent to FSL report and FSL report is not yet received. The opinion of expert is pending. Though postmortem report shows that the deceased-Sadashiv has suffered multiple injuries and died due to head injuries, but there are no eyewitnesses to the said incident. 7. The petitioner has produced the bloodstained cloths. The bloodstained cloths were sent to FSL report and FSL report is not yet received. The opinion of expert is pending. Though postmortem report shows that the deceased-Sadashiv has suffered multiple injuries and died due to head injuries, but there are no eyewitnesses to the said incident. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case at this stage no material is placed to show that accused committed offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is required to prove during the trial. However, no prejudice would be caused, if the petitioner enlarged on bail by imposing certain stringent conditions. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage, it is a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed, subject to following conditions: 1. The Committal Court/Trial Court is ordered to release the petitioner on bail on execution of personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two-Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. 2. Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly; 3. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/indirectly; 4. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the Trial Court, and 5. Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on 2nd and 15th day of every Calendar month between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. for a period of six months or till commencement of trial or until further orders whichever is later.