IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.5886/2019 BETWEEN SRI MUNDODI M. NANAIAH S/O LATE MUTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS MARAGODU VILLAGE AND POST MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-573427 (BY SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR ADVOCATE For Sri N. JAGADISH BALIGA, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATION MAKIKERI-573427 REP BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001 (BY SRI K. NASHEWARAPPA, HCGP) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS 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 THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 302 AND 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 successive bail petition is filed by the petitioner, who is accused in Crime No.278/2018 (SC No.15/2019) pending on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and under Sections 3, 27 and 30 of the Indian Arms Act.
2. Sri M. T Nanaiah, learned senior counsel for Sri N.Jagadish Baliga, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the after investigation, the Police filed charge sheet in November, 2018 itself. Since one year, the petitioner is in judicial custody. Though the case is committed to the Court of sessions, the trial is not yet commenced. The wife of the petitioner is suffering from heart ailment. She requires immediate treatment as in- patient. His children are studying in college and school. They require the presence of the petitioner for the purpose of treatment and taking care of the children. Even otherwise, there is no material to show that the petitioner committed offence under Section 302 and at the most, the offence would fall under Section 304 Part-I and Part-II of IPC. Since, the offence took place in a spur of the moment, the petitioner is not required for any more investigation. Therefore, prayed for grant of bail at least for a period of six months.
3. Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that already two bail petitions were dismissed of by this Court. Charge sheet was filed in November 2018. The eyewitnesses to the incident i.e. CWs.2 to 4 have given statement before the Police as well as before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. There is no additional ground made out for granting bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is politically influenced person as he is said to be the President of Village Panchayat. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility of the petitioner tampering with the prosecution witnesses and delaying the trial is not ruled out. There is no additional ground made out for consideration of his successive bail petition. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Upon hearing the argument of learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP, admittedly, the earlier bail petition in Crl.P.No.633/2019 came to be dismissed by this Court 08.05.2019 by considering the case on merits. Subsequently, the petitioner moved one more bail petition before this Court in Crl.P.No.3461/2019 which was later withdrawn and dismissed as not pressed on 28.06.2019. Now, learned counsel for the petitioner has come up with the contention that the wife of the petitioner is not well and she is suffering from heart ailment. He has produced a medical certificate, wherein the Deputy Chief Medical Officer has stated that one Geetha is suffering from heart ailment and she requires treatment. This certificate has been issued on 31.05.2019. ECG copy has also been produced by the learned counsel. If at all the wife of the petitioner is suffering from heart ailment and the certificate has been issued by the chief doctor for the purpose of immediate medical treatment in May 2019 itself, there would be no occasion for the petitioner to withdraw his earlier bail petition, which was dismissed as not pressed on 28.06.2019. Apart from this certificate, there is no other document produced before this Court to show that she is under treatment and imminent danger and further treatment is obtained and presence of the petitioner is very much necessary to save the life of his wife. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of bail on the ground of ailment of his wife cannot be accepted.
5. As regards the offence, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in a spur of moment, the incident took place. On perusal of the evidence of the eyewitnesses especially, the complainant Mullati Chidambaram also given further statement and the statement of other witnesses goes to show that how the incident took place and the accused took up the gun and shot at the deceased Tilak Raj and the manner of incident mentioned by the eyewitness, that the accused came with a determination to commit murder of the deceased Tilak Raj. No doubt the Court cannot express any opinion on the merits of the case while deciding the bail petition and I have perused the principles laid down by this Court for considering the bail petition. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has made some guidelines for granting bail in non- bailable offence in the case of Atul Rao vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2009 CRL.L.J 634. Learned counsel also argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu Singh and others vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1978 SC 527, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail even after the accused was found guilty.
6. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and I am aware of the principles laid down for granting bail under Section 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C., Here in this case, the case record goes to show that on 01.10.2018, the petitioner took his gun and shot at Tilak Raj on his chest, due to the which, the said Tilak Raj died, which was confirmed by the Doctor when the deceased was shifted to the Hospital. The petitioner committed murder of deceased on the background of political rivalry. All the eyewitnesses have categorically stated about the involvement of the accused in this case and narrated the incident. Admittedly, the matter has already been committed to the Court of Sessions and is pending for trial to hear before charge or framing of charge. The accused used gun and also threatened to kill other eyewitnesses when they came forward to prevent the accused after the offence thereby, the prosecution was able to collect and produced material against the petitioner for having committed the offence by the accused-petitioner in this case. Admittedly, the petitioner is the President of Village Panchayat. If he is released on bail, there is every possibility of tampering the prosecution witnesses is not ruled out and the offence is under Section 302 and 307 of IPC punishable with death/imprisonment for life.
7. Considering all the above aspects, the argument addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner is not sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner and it is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner-accused. Hence, the successive bail petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE mv