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.9252/2018 BETWEEN:
Dinesh K.M., S/o late Motegowda Aged about 42 years Occ: Agriculturist R/o Kanachuru Village Gonibeedu Hobli, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District-577 132. (By Sri R.B.Deshpande, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka by Gonibeedu Police Station, Mudigere Circle Chikkamagaluru District-577 132.
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in crime No.4/2018 (S.C.No.60/2018) of Gonibeedu Police Station, Chikkamagaluru District, for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 and 449 of Indian Penal Code.
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. to release him on bail in Crime No.4/2018 (S.C.No.60/2018) of Gonibeedu Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 449 of Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is residing along with her family members. Complainant’s brother-in-law is in the habit of drinking alcohol daily and used to quarrel with his brother and sister-in-law under the influence of alcohol in connection with partition of immovable properties and in that context, ill-will was developed. It is further alleged that, on 12.1.2018 they came back and consumed the ‘Ragi Ambali’ and in that midnight at about 12.00 hours the complainant and her husband started vomiting and immediately they were taken to MGM Hospital, Mudigere and thereafter they were shifted to Holycross Hospital, Chikkamagalur and when they were questioned, they told that after coming from the work they have taken the ‘Ragi Ambali’ and they have washed the vessels and they suspected that the petitioner/accused has mixed the poison in the ‘Ragi Ambali’. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered. It is further revealed that on 19.1.2018 Venkatesh died and subsequently on 22.1.2018 at about 11.55 p.m. the complainant Rukmini also died. Already investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that there are no eyewitness to the alleged incident and entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. The complaint was registered only on the basis of suspicion on the ground that the petitioner/accused might have mixed the poison in the ‘Ragi Ambali’ and on the basis of the said material, the petitioner/accused has been apprehended. He further submitted that the motive alleged as against the petitioner/accused is that there were civil disputes between the petitioner/accused and the deceased. But the complaint itself clearly goes to show that about four years back the partition has taken place and even the said land has been distributed. He further submitted that except the voluntary statement of petitioner/accused, no other material is there against the petitioner/accused to the alleged crime. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that there is strong motive, all the witnesses have categorically stated that because of the civil dispute between the parties, the petitioner/accused has mixed poison in ‘Ragi Ambali’ and the same has been consumed by both the deceased and the complainant and they died. However, she further submitted that the medical report also clearly goes to show that the deceased have died only because of the compliation of phosphide poisoning and even the complainant was alive at that time and also suspected that it is the petitioner/accused who has poisoned in the ‘Ragi Ambali’. She further submitted that the petitioner/accused has also given the voluntary statement admitting the guilt of the accused. If the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and the petitioner/accused is involved in heinous offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment of life. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the complaint and other materials, it clearly goes to show that only on suspicion the said complaint has been made as against the petitioner/accused. No incriminating material has been produced so as to implicate the petitioner/accused to the alleged crime. Though it is contended that the motive is very strong as against the petitioner/accused, the complaint itself clearly goes to show that the partition has taken place about four years prior to the alleged incident. In that light, I feel that when the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and already the charge sheet has been filed, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In the light of the discussions held by me above, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.4/2018 (S.C.No.60/2018) of Gonibeedu police station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 449 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iii) He shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police once in 15 days between 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. till the trial is concluded.
iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
v) He shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-