IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.801/2019 BETWEEN:
K. Thippeswamy @ Thippaiah S/o Krishna Reddy Aged about 25 years Working as Security Guard At Arakere Gate Bannerghatta Road Bengaluru R/at Sriram P.G. Opp. Ishwarya Bakery Arekere, Bengaluru P/n at Honnur Village Devareddyhalli Post & Hobli Challakere Taluk Challakere District – 577 501. ...Petitioner (By Sri. M. Erappa, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka Represented by The Station House Officer Kora Police Station Tumkur District – 572 101. ... Respondent (By Sri. Namitha Mahesh B. G., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.100/2018 (C.C.No.4637/2018) of Kora Police Station, Tumkuru for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B read with 34 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 No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail in Crime No.100/2018 of Kora Police Station, Tumakuru for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) read with 34 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 while proceeding to his land on 17.06.2018 at about 6:30 a.m., noticed group of persons standing in his land. He went there and found smoke emitting out, as some unknown persons have set fire on a male dead person and due to which, the said person has died. He thought that some miscreants have committed the said offence and a complaint was registered.
4. During the course of investigation, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were apprehended and got revealed that accused No.2 was having illicit relationship with accused No.1. Accused No.2 hatched a conspiracy with accused No.1 to eliminate the deceased, who is none other than her husband. In pursuance to the said conspiracy, accused No.1 took the deceased and after consuming the liquor, committed the murder by pouring the petrol on the deceased burnt his body with an intention to evade the evidence. After the investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that already charge sheet has been filed, the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The body was identified after nine days from the registration of the complaint. He further submitted that there is no prima facie material as against the petitioner-accused No.1. He further submitted that accused No.2 has been already released on bail. He further submitted that material which is said to have been collected by the Investigating Officer is not pointing out the guilt of the accused. The only circumstance on which the prosecution is relying upon is that the deceased was lastly seen with the company of the accused, which is considered to be a very weak type of evidence. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that though the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence, there are strong circumstances to point out the guilt of the accused. She further submitted that CW.18 has clearly stated that the deceased used to quarrel with accused No.2 for having illicit relationship with accused No.1. He further submitted that the deceased was last seen with the company of the accused and in this behalf, the cashier of the Maruthi Bar and Restaurant has also deposed to that effect and even the CCTV footage collected during the course of investigation clearly goes to show that accused No.1 and the deceased were together and the petitioner-accused No.1 has not explained how and when he departed from the company of the deceased. She further submitted that there are call details in between accused No.1 and 2, which clearly goes to show about the illicit relationship between them. She further submitted that the blood stained clothes were also recovered at the instance of the petitioner-accused. All these materials indicates that the petitioner-accused is involved in a serious offence, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On these grounds she prayed to dismiss the petition 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which has been produced along with the petition.
7. Though the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence, there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident but the circumstance on which the prosecution is intending to rely upon appears to be that they are very strong to point out to the guilt of the accused for having involved in a serious offence, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. They say in settled proposition of law that ‘Men can lie but the circumstance may not’.
In that light, there are strong circumstances to connect the petitioner-accused No.1 to the alleged crime. Under the said facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has not made out any good ground to release him on bail. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RB