IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6034/2017 BETWEEN:
MAHADEVA & MAHADEVASWAMY S/O BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT GORAGUNDI VILLAGE, HOSA BADAVANE KANAKANAGAR, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DIST-577 201 (BY SRI.MAHESH A R., ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.R.NAGAR POLICE STATION, MYSORE DIST-570 001 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001.
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.445/2015 OF K.R.NAGAR POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT AND SPL.CASE NO.38/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376A,376D,302,201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(xi)(xii) & 2(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 376A, 376D, 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC and also Section 3(1)(xi), 3(1)(xii) and 2(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.445/2015. After completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence under Section 366, 376(2)(j & n), 302 and 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (POA) Act.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that there is a delay of nearly four days in lodging the complaint, which is not properly explained by the prosecution. He has also submitted that even looking to the medical records, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over dead body of the deceased, mentioned in the PM report that as the body was completely decomposed, he was not in a position to given cause of death of the deceased. Learned counsel made the submission that except the extra judicial confession made by the accused, there is no other material to connect the accused with the alleged incident. Learned counsel further submitted that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the prosecution material and the complaint averments there is statement of co- worker, who was also working along with the deceased in carrying out the cleaning work in the Mangala Karyalya of which the present petitioner is a Manager. He also made the submission that, regarding the last seen theory, there are statement of an auto driver, who has seen both the deceased as well as the accused together nearby the auto-stand. He also made the submission that the petitioner made an extra judicial confession admitting guilt and hence, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail as there is prima-facie case is made out by the prosecution.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, F.I.R., Complaint and also other materials produced by the petitioner along with the petition.
6. It is the case of the prosecution that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and it rests on circumstantial evidence. Sofar as the circumstances are concerned, in the complaint, it is mentioned that it is the accused person, who is responsible for causing the death of the deceased. Accordingly, the F.I.R. came to be registered as against the present petitioner.
7. Looking to the statements of co-workers, so also, the statement of the auto driver regarding last seen theory, the prosecution placed prima-facie material that the deceased and the present petitioner were seen together earlier to the incident. There is also an extra judicial confession made by the present petitioner admitting the guilt that it is he, who committed the alleged offence. Therefore, looking to these materials collected during investigation and placed on record by the prosecution and the case of the prosecution that it is rape with murder, serious offences are alleged against the present petitioner. Hence, considering all these aspects of the matter, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since from the date of arrest i.e., two years, the petitioner is in custody, the concerned trial Court is hereby directed to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the same as early as possible.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR