IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.633 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Mr.Mundodi M Nanaiah, S/o Late Muthappa, Aged 45 years, R/o Maragodu Village, & Post, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District-571 201.
(By Sri.Pratheep K C, Advocate) AND The State of Karnataka, By the Police attached to Madikeri Rural Police Station, Represented by The State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore-01.
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) …Petitioner …Respondent This criminal petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.278/2018 of Madikeri Rural Police Station, Kodagu for theoffence p/u/s 302, 307 of IPC and Section 3, 27 and 30 of Indian Arms 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. in Crime No.278/2018 registered by Madikeri Rural police for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 of IPC and Sections 3, 27 and 30 of the Indian Arms Act.
2. The allegations against the petitioner is that on 01.10.2018 at about 6.15 pm, the accused-petitioner said to be committed murder of the deceased-Thilakraj with his revolver during the quarrel.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to personal enmity, quarrel took place. There is no motive to kill the deceased or commit the murder. Deceased himself came and picked the quarrel. During the quarrel, the offence was committed. The alleged offence may attract Sections 304 (i) and 304(ii) of IPC but not under Section 302 of IPC. There is no pre-meditation or preparation made by the petitioner to commit the murder of the deceased. Moreover, the petitioner is a licence-holder of the revolver. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prays to allow the petition.
4. Per Contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that there is pre-meditation and preparation made by the petitioner to commit the murder of the deceased. There are four eye-witnesses to the incident. According to the eye-witnesses, petitioner came prepared to kill the deceased and fired on the left side of the chest of the deceased-Thilakraj. Investigation is completed. There are sufficient materials placed on record to show that petitioner has committed the offence. Hence, she prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State and on perusal of the records, it clearly goes to show that petitioner is said to be the elected member of the Grama Panchayat and deceased is said to be the opposite party person who contested against the petitioner and lost in the last election. Due to the previous political rivalry, petitioner has committed the murder of the deceased. There is sufficient material placed on record to show that petitioner has involved in the alleged offence and caused murder.
There are no grounds made out by the petitioner to allow the petition. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE SB