IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1767/2019 BETWEEN:
UMESHA S/O SHIVANNASHETTY @ SHAMBULINGASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER, R/AT MARAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRUCT-577 101.
AND (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) .. PETITIONER THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY K.R. NAGARA POLICE, MYSURU DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.
.. RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP) *** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.266/2017 (S.C.NO.254/2017) OF K.R. NAGAR P.S., MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 365, 364, 404, 302, 201 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No.266/2017 (SC No. 254/2017) of K.R.Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 364, 404, 302, 201 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the marriage of the deceased was performed on 18.05.2017 with CW3. Even after the marriage the petitioner/accused stayed in the house of the Complainant for two to three days. On 26.05.2017, the petitioner/accused came back on his motorbike and requested the deceased to accompany him to go to K.R.Nagar as he has got some work. Believing the words of the petitioner/accused, the deceased went along with him by informing his wife and mother. It is further stated that while going the deceased was wearing a gold chain and ring. After going along with the petitioner/accused he did not returned on the said night. Even when the members of the family tried to contact him over the phone, the phone was switched of and members of the family searched the deceased for two to three days but they could not get any clue. When they enquired with the petitioner/accused about the deceased, he used to give evasive answers and subsequently, the Complainant got a suspicion that the petitioner/accused might have abducted the deceased and might have kept in an unknown place, filed the complaint. After apprehending the petitioner/accused and on interrogation they came to know that the petitioner/accused himself had committed the murder of the deceased. On the basis of the complaint, a case came to be registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the entire case rest on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. He further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The case of the prosecution rests only on theory of last seen, but it is also not substituted by any material. He further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner/accused is not required for the purpose of further investigation. He further submitted that there is delay of seven days in filing the complaint. The only circumstance on which the prosecution is intending to rely upon is that the petitioner/accused was having an intention to abduct the deceased and took away the gold articles and the recovery of the club and last seen together and also that the body has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner/accused. It is further submitted that petitioner/accused has been apprehended on suspicion and mere suspicion itself cannot take proof and other circumstance must also be established in order to bring home the guilt of the petitioner/accused. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety.
He has also relied upon the decision in the case of UPPALA BIXAM ALIAS BIXMAIAH vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in AIR 2019 SC 410. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for respondent - State vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused has taken the deceased and thereafter the deceased was missing and whereabouts are also not traced. Subsequently, after apprehending the petitioner/accused, he has shown the dead body and during the course of investigation the clothes of the deceased have been recovered along with a gold chain and ring. She has also further submitted that the clothes of the petitioner/accused were also seized. The FSL report clearly goes to show that clothes of the petitioner/accused are stained with B+ blood, which is also blood group of the deceased. She further submitted that CW2 has stated that the petitioner/accused has taken the deceased along with him by saying that he has got some work. The conduct of the petitioner/accused is very much doubtful when the Complainant and others have enquired about the deceased, he has given evasive answers. She further submitted that there are circumstances to implicate the petitioner/accused with the offences alleged. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials, it is clear that the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The only circumstance which has been asserted is that there is seven days delay in lodging the complaint, but in the complaint itself it has been explained that they have searched the deceased for two to three days and his whereabouts were not known and the deceased was taken by the petitioner/accused and on suspicion the petitioner/accused might have abducted the deceased and kept in unknown place. The complaint has been filed and thereafter the petitioner/accused has been apprehended. Even the gold chain and ring has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner/accused along with the club which has been used for assaulting the deceased on his head. Even motive is also very clear that in order to have the gold chain on the body of the deceased, the petitioner/accused had committed the alleged offences. All the circumstances, which has been relied upon would clearly goes to show that there are prima facie material as against the petitioner/accused. Hence, petitioner/accused has not made out any case to release him on bail.
8. In view of the discussions made above, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Vk