IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7552 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8484 OF 2018 IN CRL.P.NO.7552/2018 BETWEEN:
SRI SURESHA S/O YAKOOB AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT OWNER OF NISARGA PRINTERS PRAGATHINAGAR SHIKARIPURA – 577 427 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI C.H.JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI B.S.REDDY, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RURAL POLICE SHIKARIPURA REP. BY S.P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU – 560 001 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.190/2018 REGISTERED BY SHIKARIPURA RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 201, 302, 120(B), 114 AND 364 R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P.NO.8484/2018 BETWEEN:
NARASIMHAMURTHY @ NARASIMHASWAMY S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC: EDITOR OF NEWSPAPER R/O AMBEDKAR NAGAR SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIKARIPURA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 427 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI R.B.DESHPANDE, ADV.) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHIKARIPURA RURAL POLICE STATION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 427 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.190/2018 (C.C.NO.464/2018) OF SHIKARIPURA RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 34, 201, 302, 120(B), 114 AND 364 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners are accused Nos.2 & 3 in Crime No.190/2018 of Shikaripura Rural Police Station. Petitioners and two others were charge sheeted in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 201, 302, 120B, 114 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
Accused No.1 and 4 are husband and wife. The victim Sanjeevakumar was showing sexual proclivity towards accused No.4 despite the advice of accused No.1. Being enraged by that, accused conspired to commit his murder. In execution of such conspiracy, on 06.05.2018 at 11.30 a.m. secured Sanjeev Kumar to Shikaripura town. The accused kidnapped him from there at 2.20 p.m. and took him to the Jalli Crusher office of the first accused situated in land in Ballur village. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 assaulted the victim with iron rod, then all of them strangulated him. To screen the evidence of offence they buried the dead body in the land of the first accused.
3. The victim’s father filed missing complaint on 14.05.2018. Based on some materials collected during the course of investigation accused No.1 was arrested on 24.05.2018. On the basis of his voluntary statement the dead body was exhumed and petitioners were arrested.
4. Sri C.H. Jadhav, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri B.S. Reddy, learned advocate on record for accused No.3 and Sri R.B. Deshpande, learned counsel for accused No.2 submit that the incriminating material is only against accused No.1 and petitioners are implicated in the case on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.1. They further submit that statements of the alleged eye-witnesses are recorded after 20 days and petitioners are ready to take up trial, if they are released on bail.
5. Per contra, Sri K.P. Yoganna, learned H.C.G.P. submits that, the case is based on the evidence of eye-witnesses and there is material to connect the petitioners to the crime.
6. As per prosecution’s case, C.W.2 is the eye witness to the incident. The dead body itself exhumed on 25.05.2018. Till then whether the victim is dead, whether the death is homicidal were not revealed. Under these circumstances, delay in recording the statement of the eye-witnesses cannot be blown out proportion.
7. As per the statements of the eye-witnesses, he was employee in the farm land and jelly crusher unit of accused No.1. C.Ws.3 to 5 state that they have witnessed kidnapping of the victim. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and material on record, it is not a fit case to grant bail. Therefore, petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE HR