IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.653 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Deekshith M.S, @ Deekshith Gowda M.S, S/o Shivashankar, Aged about 18 years, R/at in front of Kuvempu Stadium Guttalu Colony, Mandya District-571 426.
(By Sri. Basavaraj S. Sappannavar, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, K.R. Pete Rural Police State – 571 426, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G, HCGP) ...Petitioner ... Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.118/2017 of K.R.Pet Rural Police Station, Mandya for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and 364, 454, 380 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner- accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, seeking to release him on bail in S.C.No.5042/2018 in Crime No.118/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that, the complainant had two children and deceased Shashank was studying in 8th standard. On 15.05.2017 morning hours the complainant and his wife went out of the house by leaving deceased and at about 11 am, the daughter also left and in the afternoon at about 3 pm they came to the house and saw that the door was locked and the chappals of the deceased were also not found out side the house and when they called over the phone, the said phone was not reachable, they waited upto 5 pm and thereafter they made enquiry with his friends but his son was not traced. On 16.05.2017 at about 7 am his relative one Nagashree Shetty and Anaiah Shetty when they were searching, they found the body of the deceased Shashank and the chappals and immediately they informed the complainant, when the complainant went and saw the body was in a supine position and the breath was not coming from the mouth and there were some injuries over the body of the deceased under the impression that some miscreants have committed the said offence. The said complaint was registered and subsequently, after investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and there were no eye witness to the alleged incident. He further submitted that as against the accused-petitioner the only evidence is the recovery which has been done at the instance of the accused with regard to the chain and other articles. He further submitted that accused-petitioner is 18 years old and he is a student and he should not languish in jail and he is not having any criminal bad incident. He further submitted that petitioner-accused is a young boy and there is no previous bad incident and under such circumstances, he has to be released on bail. In order to substantiate the arguments, he relied upon the case of GAURAV BANSAL VS. STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI) reported in 2008 SCC ONLINE DELHI 1399. He further submitted that the recovery alone is unfolded evidence and said evidence cannot be the sole criteria for the purpose of conviction of the accused, under such circumstances, that the accused- petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. In order to substantiate the said arguments he also relied upon the case Suresh K Vs. State of Karnataka, in Crl.P.No.8376/2017 dated 22.01.2018. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that though entire case rest on circumstantial evidence, there is a strong motive of the accused-petitioner for having taken Rs.7,000/- from the deceased and when the deceased asked to refund the same, in order to avoid the same he has eliminated the deceased. She further submitted that two witnesses have stated in 164 statements that accused-petitioner has given an extra judicial confession before them for committing the alleged crime. He further submitted that there is a strong evidence of recovery of chain and gold articles and key of the house of the complainant at the instance of the accused. All these circumstances, clearly goes to show that accused- petitioner has involved in the alleged crime. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, she submits that there is a prima facie material as against the petitioner-accused to connect to the alleged crime. On these grounds she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the records.
7. It is an admitted fact that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and no eye witness are there. Though it is contended that accused-petitioner is a student and he is a young boy, then under such circumstances, accused-petitioner has to be released on bail, that is not a rule, the Court has to look into the gravity of the offence and other material which is there as against the petitioner- accused, then thereafter, the decision has to be taken whether the accused-petitioner has to be released on bail or not.
8. As could be seen from records and submission of learned HCGP, that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and prosecution intend to rely upon the circumstances like motive, extra judicial confession and recovery of the chain and gold articles and the key of the house of the complainant at the instance of the accused- petitioner. All these circumstances, is to be appreciated only at the time of trial. But, however, on close reading of said circumstances it appears that there is a prima facie material as against petitioner-accused for having involved in heinous offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In that light, I feel it is not a good ground to release the petitioner on bail.
In the light of the above discussion, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE ag