IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7867/2019 BETWEEN:
1. NAVEEN KUMAR M.B @ NAVEEN S/O MADEGOWDA, AGED 31 YEARS, R/AT BELAGUMBA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562159.
2. ARUN KUMAR .V @ ARUN GOWDA @ HANDI S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, C/O PUTTA CHENNAPPA, 1ST FLOOR LAKKAPPA BADAVANE, JANABHARATHI LAYOUT, 1ST BLOCK, MARIYAPPANA PLAYA, BANGALORE – 560 059.
AND ALSO R/AT GERAHALLI VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 159.
… PETITIONERS (BY SRI RADHIKA .M., ADVOCATE FOR SMT PADMAVATHI .N., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE BY MELUKOTE PS SRIRANGAPATTNA TALUK, 571 431 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.10/2019 (C.C.NO.342/2019) OF MELUKOTE P.S., MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.342/2019 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC., Pandavapura, for the offence under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 IPC.
3. Brief factual matrix of the case as could be seen from the charge sheet are that the complainant by name Chandrakala daughter of the deceased Savithramma lodged a complaint stating that her mother was working as marriage broker and she selected a bride to accused No.1 and after consultation, said marriage was performed on 05.02.2018. The brokerage money of Rs.10,000/- was not actually paid to Savithramma by C.W.12. Therefore, she propaganded that the character of wife of accused No.1 was not good and she was loving some other boy prior to the marriage. In this context, accused No.1 and other accused persons developed illwill and hatred against said Savithramma and accused No.1 has secured the presence of other accused persons and took Savithramma along with them and committed her murder by assaulting her and thereafter, her dead body was thrown from the bridge in order to throw her to the channel, but the body was recovered from the side of said channel later.
4. The entire case revolves around circumstantial evidence. The police have recorded the statements of one Sumanth and others citing them as eye witnesses on 03.04.2019, but the incident was actually happened on 23.07.2018. None of these witnesses i.e., C.Ws.2 to 7 are the witnesses who have stated before the police that they saw Savithramma in the company of the accused persons on the date of incident. Though some of the witnesses are known to the complainant/daughter of deceased Savithramma, they did not disclose it to anybody muchless to the police. Their statements were recorded on 03.04.2019 after nabbing the accused persons on 02.04.2019. There is long gap between recording of statement of witnesses and the death of deceased. The said last seen of the accused and deceased together is a circumstance that requires to be established beyond reasonable doubt during the course of trial and the Court has to evaluate with other circumstances, if any, for the purpose of considering the proof or otherwise of the prosecution case. Except the last seen circumstance, as submitted by learned High Court Government Pleader there are no other materials available.
5. Under the above said circumstances, petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail on conditions. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with C.C.No.342/2019 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC., Pandavapura, for the offence under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall execute their personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against them is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS