IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6917/2018 BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA S/O NARAYANAPPA, R/O DODDAMARALI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT PIN-562 101 (BY SRI LAKSHMI KANTH K., ADVOCATE) AND:
...PETITIONER 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BY KODIGENAHALLI POLICE STATION, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.
2. MUNILAKSHMAMMA W/O MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT VYJAKURU VILLAGE, KIVARA HOBLI, CHITHAMANAI TALUK, CHIKABALLAPUR DISTRICT PIN-562 101 (BY SRI K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP. FOR R1 ... RESPONDENTS R2 IS SERVED BUT REMAINED ABSENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.60/2018 OF KODIGENAHALLI POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.302 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 2015.
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.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail in Crime No.60/2018 registered by Kodigenahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
2. Though this Court by order dated 04.01.2019, issued notice to respondent No.2 – complainant and even service report has been filed, she has remained absent.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State.
4. Brief facts of the case as per the complaint are that, Smt. Muni Lakshmamma gave a complaint stating that she with her husband are residing at Vyjakoor village and her parents are residing at Chikkaballapur. Her father is having two children. Her brother Anjinappa got married to one Manjula resident of Bommakallu village, twenty years ago and they are having a daughter by name, Gouthami, aged about 18 years. She has further stated that, when the said Manjula was pregnant, her brother Anjinappa got married one Yashoda who is stated to be their relative, and thereafter, the said Yashoda begotten two children. It is further alleged that the said Yashoda was having illicit relation with accused No.2 – Manjunath and the said fact came to the notice of the brother of the complainant and as such, there was a quarrel between her brother and Yashoda. The brother of the complainant, a day prior to the incident, after having dinner was sleeping in front of the house and on intervening night of 11.05.2018 and 12.05.2018, at about 1.00 a.m., the said Yashoda under the impression that the deceased would prevent her from having illicit relation with Manjunath, she committed the alleged offences. It is further alleged that on the next day morning, the relatives after getting information came to the place and after making enquiry a complaint was registered.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident.
Already charge sheet has been filed. He further submitted that there is delay in filing the complaint. He further submitted that inquest mahazar has been drawn on 12.05.2018 and at that time, at para No.10, the name of accused Nos.1 and 2 and their illicit relation has been disclosed. But how the said fact came to the knowledge of the police and how they have mentioned the fact in the inquest mahazar is not forthcoming. He further submitted that the statement of the witnesses have been recorded only after 20.05.2018 and thereafter, the name of accused No.2 has been implicated in the said case. Prima facie, there arises a doubt with regard to the presence of the accused -petitioner at the place of the incident. He further submitted that the accused - petitioner is innocent and he would abide by the conditions that would be imposed by this Court, if he is released on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and contended that though there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident on which the prosecution has relied upon, alleging that the accused Nos.1 and 2 having committed the murder of the deceased Anjinappa but there is a seizer of incriminating material at the instance of the accused – petitioner. He further submitted that all the witnesses have categorically stated about the illicit relation of accused Nos.1 and 2 and that the deceased was obstacle in their illicit relationship. By taking advantage, accused No.1 called accused No.2 and both together have committed alleged offences. He further submitted that there is prima facie material against the accused – petitioner. On these grounds, he made prayer to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials and heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and perused the charge sheet material made available by the learned counsel for petitioner.
8. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The only allegation which has been made against the petitioner - accused is that, at the instance of accused No.1, the petitioner – accused No.2 was called in the intervening night of 11.05.2018 and 12.05.2018 and they have committed alleged offences. As could be seen from the inquest mahazar which has been recorded on 12.05.2018 at para No.11, it is specifically mentioned that it is because of the illicit relation which was between them could be a cause for the alleged offences. But as to how the said information came to the knowledge of the police while drawing the mahazar has not been specifically stated. When there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident and that there is no specific averment in this behalf, the case has been registered on extra-judicial confession.
9. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that if by imposing some stringent conditions if the accused/petitioner is enlarged on bail, then it is going to meet the ends of justice.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and accused No.2-petitioner herein is enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:-
i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner till the disposal of the case.
iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
iv) He shall be regular in appearing before the Court till the trial is concluded.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj