IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N K SUDHINDRARAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10085 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. RAMAREDDY S/O PATEL MUNISHAMIREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST R/AT NAGANAHALLI VILLAGE RAJENDRAHALLI PANCHAYATH BYRAKUR HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 132 2. G LOKESH S/O GURUMURTHY REDDY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST R/AT NO.83,NEKKUNDI DOMASANDRA, MUTHUSANDRA ANEKAL, BENGALURU-560 087. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI:CHANDRASHEKARA K A, ADV) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF NANGALI POLICE STATION MULABAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-573 132 REPT.BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI:CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.No.81/2017 OF NANGLI POLICE STATION, KOLAR AND IN S.C.No.07/2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOALAR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 AND 201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This is a petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking for regular bail in connection with Crime No.81/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
2. The complainant is one Divya, wife of Subramanireddy. It is a case wherein the complainant claims that her mother Savithramma was done to death by her own sibling Ramareddy and his aid Lokesh. In order to avoid the wastage of judicial time, the substance of the complaint is culled out from the certified copy of the order in Spl.SC.No.7/2017, which is as under:
“The case of the prosecution is that complainant Divya and her sister are the daughters to deceased Savithramma and earlier they were residing at Ramasamudram. There are nine brothers and sisters to her mother and without giving property to her mother they have partitioned the family properties and when they demanded Ramareddy, he did not give share. About 15 years back, the Sy.Nos.3 and 4/1 measuring 6 acres was given in agreement of sale to one Subbanna and thereafter he sold the said property to one Venkataravanappa and knowing this when they demanded for share, they told that they are going to give land, but they have executed the sale deed and her mother had paid the amount. When her mother went to take possession of the said property, they threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter her mother filed case and got the land. For that the accused became angry and on 19.05.2017 her mother called her and enquired about the health of child, but subsequently she did not called. On 25.06.2017 they came to know that there is a dead body in the land of Ramareddy and they went and identified the dead body and she had doubt that this accused are responsible for the death of her mother.”
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The complainant is not the eye witness to the incident. The petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in the case. They are in judicial custody since from 28.06.2017. He further submits that the petitioners are law abiding citizens and that they are ready to abide by the conditions and ready to offer surety for their release on bail. Therefore, prays for allowing of the bail petition.
4. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the petitioners are involved in the commission of murder of two persons. He further submits that the property in dispute amongst the deceased and petitioners are not in dispute. And this is the main cause for the murder of deceased. Hence, he prays to reject the bail petition.
5. Perusal of the complaint averments would disclose that the deceased Savithramma is the sister of accused No.1. They were totally ten in numbers including accused No.1. It is alleged that Savithramma was insisting for settlement of share in the property that belonged to the joint family. However, petitioner No.1 was not inclined for the settlement. Thus, the claim of the prosecution appears that the petitioner-accused No.1 wanted to murder his sister and her supporter with the connivance of Lokesh, the petitioner No.2 herein.
6. The complainant came to know that dead body was floating in a well at Naganahalli and she goes there alongwith her husband then came to know about the incident and suspected that her maternal uncle Ramareddy with connivance of broker accused No.2 Lokesh have committed the murder. When the Court asked her about the other dead body of male person Redappa, son of Gopalappa, Sathanur Village, Mulbagal Taluk, she has stated that he was assisting Savitharamma in the matters of looking after the properties and maintaining records. Hence, petitioners-accused wanted to eliminate him as well.
Thus, it is clear that the Redappa was done to death by accused because of his support to Savithramma.
7. Be that as it may, the complaint is entirely based on the circumstances as the complainant who is residing at Bengaluru narrates the incident as the eye witness, though on careful reading of the complaint reveals that she is the not eye witness. The petitioners are said to be in judicial custody from 28.06.2017 and final report is already said to have been filed which suggests that the investigation was completed while petitioners were in judicial custody. Thus, there was no chance of petitioners interfering with the investigation. Therefore, the allegations in the final report are to be ascertained during the full-fledged trial. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for bail.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioners are enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.81/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, subject to following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
(ii) They shall not leave the Karnataka State without the permission from the Trial Court; and (iii) They shall mark their attendance on every Sunday between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. once in a month, till the conclusion of the trial.
Sd/- JUDGE *bgn/-