IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.9243/2018 BETWEEN:
Riyaz @ Mohammad Riyaz S/o C.H.Hasanabba Aged about 34 years R/o Rahana Manzil Door No.1-134A, Karim Bailu House, Hosmar Edu Village, Karkala Taluk Udupi Taluk and District-574 104.
(By Sri Vikas M., Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Karkala Town Police Station, Udupi, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri Nasrulla Khan, HCGP) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.118/2018 (C.C.No.1124/2018) of Karkala Town Police Station, Udupi, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 380, 379 of Indian Penal Code.
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.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.118/2018 of Karkala Town Police Station, Udupi, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 380, 379 of Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant is the husband of the deceased. It is stated in the complaint that he got married with the deceased and thereafter a son was born and subsequently she was working in Isreal and about eight years’ back she came back and she was doing Jasmine business and the said son used to come to the house of the complainant once in a week and the husband never used to visit the house of the deceased. On 8.7.2018 at about 8.15 a.m. he was proceeding to the Church and while passing through the house of the deceased, he noticed that the door was closed and the two wheeler bearing Registration No.KA.20 EN 1096 was standing in the compound wall and he went to the Church and while returning about 1.40 p.m. the said two wheeler was not seen and the door was half opened and in order to talk to her he went inside the house and there he noticed the dead body of the deceased and he also came to know that some miscreants has committed the murder of the deceased and in order to screen the offence, some clothes have been put and after coming to know that the chain was missing, a complaint was registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/accused is innocent and he is not involved in the alleged crime. Earlier the complaint was registered against the unknown person, there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is further stated that it is the accused who has given Rs.15,00,000/- to the deceased and he was there in the house of the deceased two days prior to the alleged incident. Subsequently he went to Ajmeer Sharif and when he was in Bombay he was apprehended by the police. Only with an intention to avoid the payment of the amount paid by the accused a false complaint has been registered by the husband of the deceased. He further submitted that the husband of the deceased is not in cordial term with the deceased. He further submitted that when the accused person is arrested no recoveries have been made, subsequently he has been produced before the Magistrate and thereafter he has been taken to police custody and at that time the gold articles were recovered and even the incriminating materials have been recovered. That itself clearly goes to show that the petitioner/accused has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the other gold ornaments were there over the body of the deceased except the chain. If really the petitioner/accused were intending to take away the gold articles for gain, he could have taken the all the gold articles over the body. He further submitted that the requisition has been sent for securing the presence of the accused prior to apprehension of the accused. That itself clearly goes to show that the investigating officer is well planned and he has secured the panch witnesses and thereafter the accused has been apprehended and recovery has been shown. The petitioner is innocent and already charge sheet has been filed and there are no incriminating material to point out the guilt of the accused. The petitioner/accused is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. There are strong circumstances to show the involvement of the petitioner/accused in the alleged crime. He further submitted that there is a strong motive that the petitioner/accused has lent the amount to deceased and in order to recover the same, two days earlier to the alleged incident he had been to the house of the deceased and she requested him to come after two days and when he went after two days then there was altercation between the accused and the deceased and at that time he has also suffered with injuries. He has not explained under what circumstances he has suffered with injuries. He further submitted that the gold chain has also been recovered at the instance of the accused and even the CCTV footage also goes to show that the accused has went to the Sunil Jewellary at Andheri West Branch and there he has given the old gold articles and has purchased the new gold articles and thereafter the owner has also returned Rs.6,830/-, the additional amount which was there over the old gold. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused was familiar with the deceased and there were many transaction between the accused and the deceased and in that light the alleged incident has taken place. The circumstances which have been pointed out clearly goes to show that the petitioner/accused is involved in a serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Under the said facts and circumstances, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the entire charge sheet material there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. The investigating records supports the circumstances on which the prosecution is intending to rely upon. That is the matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. Looking to the material, earlier it clearly goes to show that the involvement of the petitioner/accused in the alleged crime and the circumstances also pointed out towards the guilt of the accused.
8. Under the said facts and circumstances, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, there is pirma facie material. As such petitioner has not made out any good ground to release him on bail.
Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-