IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8703 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Keerthi Raje Urs S.A. S/o. Amruth Raje Urs Aged about 38 years R/o. D.No.998, 3rd Cross 3rd Main Road, Kesare Kurimandi Block Rajendra Nagar N.R. Mohalla Mysuru – 570 007. ...Petitioner (By Sri. Harsha.V, Adv. for Sri. B.N.Vrushabhendra, Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka by Narasimharaja Police Mysuru District Rep: by High Court State Public Prosecutor Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.175/2018 (C.C.No.3548/2018) of Narasimharaja P.S., Mysuru City for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 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. to release him on regular bail in Crime No.175/2018 (C.C.No.3548/2018) of Narasimharaja Mohalla Police Station, Mysuru city for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-state.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the petitioner- accused is a real estate agent and deceased (Smt.Mahalakshmi) was looking to purchase an immovable property and therefore, she contacted the petitioner and gave him Rs.2,000/- as an advance commission and the petitioner-accused used to take her to different places in Mysuru and showed different immovable properties but she was not convinced with any of the property. On 27.05.2018, the petitioner again took the deceased and showed a site near Java Factory road and then after showing the site, he asked her to give Rs.2,000/- as his commission, for which, she refused saying that, she has already paid him Rs.2,000/-. Enraged by the act of the deceased, the petitioner-accused slapped the deceased on her left cheek with hand, as a result of the same she fell down on the edge of cement drainage and sustained injury and as a result of which, she died on the spot. Further allegation is that, the petitioner-accused pushed her into the drainage and went away from the spot by taking her scooter with him and also took away Rs.1,500/- and mobile phone of the deceased and parked the said scooter in front of Mahalakshmi Sweets. It is further alleged that on the same day the petitioner-accused came back to the spot at 10.30 pm and dug a hole on the side of cement drainage and buried the body and covered the hole, thereby he committed the alleged offence. On the basis of the missing complaint lodged by the complainant who is the husband of the deceased, during the course of the investigation the accused was arrested and the fact of the alleged incident has been discussed.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that there is a delay in filing the complaint, only on the basis of the voluntary statement of the petitioner-accused the body of the deceased has been recovered. He further submitted that there are no eye witness to the alleged incident and the entire case rest on circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that the said body was in a decomposed position and it is not identifiable that she is the wife of the complainant. There are no specific identifiable marks on the body of the deceased. Only on the basis of the recovery of the gold articles and mobile from the petitioner-accused, the petitioner-accused is alleged to have committed the said offence, no DNA report is also produced. He further submitted that the alleged incident has occurred in a public place and nobody noticed the dead body and the allegation made against the petitioner-accused is that by about 10.30 pm he dug a hole, buried the body and covered the hole, which is also not acceptable. Alternatively, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-accused was not having any intention to cause the death of the deceased. He further submits that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and release the petitioner-accused on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner- accused took the deceased and he had some altercations and at that time he assaulted and the deceased fell on the edge of the cement drainage and sustained grievous injuries, thereafter with an intention to screen the evidence he has buried the body of the deceased into a hole near the cement drainage. He further submitted that the gold articles and mobile of the deceased are also seized at the instance of the accused. Though the entire case rest on circumstantial evidence, there are some strong circumstances to connect the petitioner-accused to the alleged crime. The alleged offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life and if he is enlarged on bail he may abscond and may not be available for trial. On these grounds he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials which has been produced and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. Admittedly, the entire case rest on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witness to the alleged incident. The only circumstances are which the prosecution intends to rely upon is the recovery of the gold articles and mobile at the instance of the accused and accused showing the dead body where he has buried, that is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated at the time of trial.
8. Even on the plain reading of the contents of the complaint that itself clearly goes to show that the petitioner- accused had demanded Rs.2,000/- which the deceased refused to pay and the said act has occurred in a spur of moment and the petitioner-accused had no intention to cause the death of the deceased. In that light, the petitioner- accused has made out a case to release him on bail.
9. Taking into consideration, the above facts and circumstances, I feel if the petitioner-accused is enlarged on bail by imposing stringent conditions, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Petitioner- accused is ordered to be release on bail in Crime No.175/2018 (C.C.No.3548/2018) of Narasimharaja Mohalla Police Station, Mysuru city for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner-accused 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.
2.He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly 3.He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
4.He shall regularly appear before the Court for trial.
5.He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police station, till the trial is concluded.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS