IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2637/2019 BETWEEN :
Ashok J S/o. late Jayaram Aged about 38 years R/a. No. 147, 11th A Cross 11 Main, Vrishabhavathinagar Kamakshipalya Bengaluru – 79. … PETITIONER (By Sri. D.A. Jagadeesh, Adv., for Sri. S. Girish Kumar, Adv.) AND :
State By Kunigal Police Station Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru – 560 001. … RESPONDENT (By Sri. Honnappa, HCGP) ---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No. 400/2018 (C.C. No. 06/2019) registered by Kunigal Police and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court passed the following;
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader and perused the records.
2. A charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 109, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner has been arraigned as accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 6/2019 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal.
3. Brief facts of the case on hand are that a lady by name Ambika was married to the deceased. After the marriage the deceased person, that is, Sudeendra Theertha Mutalik was addicted to bad habits and he used to spend lot of money by taking loan and also misappropriating amounts pertaining to a school in which he was working, that is by name Dubin Tagore School. In this context some differences arose between the husband and the wife and they separated themselves. Subsequently, parents of the said Ambika have in-fact compromised the matter and husband and wife again joined and started living together. Thereafter it is said that, the husband of the said Ambika (deceased) started real estate business and came in contact with one Basavanagowda. The said Basavanagowda in fact had an evil eye on this lady and he wanted to develop some relationship with her and he also wanted to marry her by making her to divorce her husband, that is, the deceased. In this context it is also available in the charge sheet that at the instance of Basavanagowda, Ambika and her husband separated by means of a decree of divorce by competent Court and thereafter the deceased was not having any contact with her wife and children. It is also the case of the prosecution that the said Basavanagowda had requested the parents of Ambika to give her in marriage. It is also alleged that he has taken an insurance policy from Star Health Accident Insurance in the name of the deceased for the purpose of taking money after the death of the deceased with a forethought to kill the deceased with the help of others. In this context it is alleged that he had a friend by name Tejashwari who is accused No. 4 and through her he gave an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to this petitioner and another person by name Prakash Kumar for the purpose of killing the deceased. It is also alleged that Prakash Kumar and Ashok have taken the deceased in a car towards Magadi Bengaluru Road and committed the murder of the deceased by strangulating his neck and threw his body on the side of the road. On these allegations the police have investigated the matter and laid charge sheet.
4. During the course of investigation Tejeshwari was released on bail. The Court has observed while releasing the said lady on bail that the entire allegations are on the accused No. 1 who has actually taken the insurance policy and who had an evil eye on this particular lady. The Court also observed that there was no material placed before the Court to show that there was any contract between Tejeshwari and this petitioner. Therefore, looking to the above said circumstances except the above said motive factor, there appears to be no other connecting material like the accused and the deceased last seen together or the accused persons were last seen near the scene of offence or immediately after the incident they were seen anywhere. Whether the accused persons have actually involved in the offence or not has to be thrashed out during the course of trial and the case to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Whether there exists any strong motive so far as this petitioner is concerned and it appears that he is a supari killer according to prosecution but no other materials are produced to show that he is a habitual offender and he has been involved in any other case and particularly he belonged to Raichur District and he was brought by Basavanagowda and Tejeshwari for the purpose of killing the deceased. All these factual aspects have to be established during the course of full dressed trial. Under the above said circumstances and when there is no bad antecedents alleged against the petitioner and the case is entirely depending upon the circumstantial evidence, at this stage, in my opinion, as the accused is in judicial custody and he is no more required for any further interrogation, on stringent conditions the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following;
The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No. 2 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 400/2018 of Kunigal Police Station registered against him for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 201, 109 read with Section 34 IPC subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with Two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
LRS Sd/- JUDGE