Shri. Manjunath S/O. Peerappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3566 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 08 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
                          BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100177 OF 2021

   BETWEEN

   SHRI MANJUNATH S/O; PEERA PPA BI DI,
   AGE: 24 YEARS , OCC: TILES FITTIN G,
   R/O; SAMPA GON , TQ: BAILA HONGA L,
   DIST: BELA GAVI-591125.
                                  ...A PPELLANT

   (BY SRI.S .M.MUCHANDI, ADV OCATE)

   AND

   1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
          THE POLI CE INSPECTOR
          THE POLI CE INSPECTOR
          MARKET POLICE S TATION
          BELAGAVI CITY, D IST; BELA GAVI-590001.
          REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
          HIGH COURT BUILDING
          HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA
          AT. DHARWAD BEN CH-5800111

   2.     SHRI GAN GAPPA
          S/O YALLA PPA PUJ ERI
          R/O S OMANATTI VILLAGE,
          TQ & DIST: BELA GAVI- 591121.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

   (BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP FOR R1)
   (R-2-SERVED & UN REPRES ENTED)
                            2




     THIS CRIMINAL A PPEAL IS FILED U/S 14-A(2) OF
SC/ST (PA) ACT, 1989, SEEKING TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL FILED BY THIS APPELLANT BY SETTING ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.608/2011 DATED
05.07.2021 PASS ED BY THE III ADD L. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS    COURT   BELAGAVI     A ND   FURTHER    BE
PLEAS ED TO ALLOW THE CRL.MISC.NO.608/ 2021 AND
FURTHER     GRAN T    REGULAR      BAIL    TO     THE
APPELLANT/ACCUS ED NO.3 IN SPL.CASE.N O.128/ 2021
(MARKET P.S.CRIME NO.30/ 2021 UN DER SECTION 302,
364, 342, 109, 120(B), 328, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC
AND SECTION 3(2)(v), 3( 1)(r) , 3(1)(s), 3(2)( va) OF
SC/ST PA ACT , PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT , BELAGAVI .

     THIS CRIMINAL A PPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, T HE COURT DELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:

                    JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by appellant/accused

No.3 seeking setting aside the order passed in

Crl.Misc.No.608/2021 dated 05.07.2021 by III

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi,

wherein the bail application of the

appellant/accused No.3 came to be rejected.

The appellant/accused No.3 had sought bail in

crime No.30/2021 of Market Police Station,

Belagavi, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 302, 364, 342, 109,

120(B), 328, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code ((hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for

brevity) and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),

3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'SC/ST (POA) Act', for

brevity).

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

One Gangappa Yallappa Pujari resident of

Somanhatti village, Tq & Dist: Belagavi, filed a

complaint stating that he is residing in

Somanhatti village, with his family and his son

Sagar (deceased) was married to one

Ningamma of Budihal village about nine months

ago and he was working as Hamali in Chonnad

Steel Industries, Belagavi. That on 11.02.2021,

deceased Sagar had gone to work and he did

not return in the evening and they searched

and he could not be traced and therefore they

filed a missing complaint with the Market Police

Station on 16.02.2021. It is further submitted

that on 21.02.2021, when the complainant was

searching for his son, he met one Mallesh

Gangappa Myageri of Mohare village of

Bailhongal Taluk, who informed him that his

Maruti car was hired on rent by one Balappa

Bhagawantappa Dinni (accused No.1) for going

to Ulavi on 11.02.2021. On that day along

with accused No.1 one Basavaraj Yallappa

Uppar (accused No.2) also joined the car. Later

one more person joined in the car, whose name

was Sagar (deceased). They travelled on the

highway NH-4 and one more person Manjunath

Peerappa Bidi (accused No.3) joined in the car.

All the five went in the car and stopped the

vehicle near Ganesh Gudi and at that time all

the three accused strangulated Sagar and

killed him, it was at about 8.00 p.m. and they

threw the dead body by the side of the road

and returned to Belagavi and they threatened

the said Mallesh Gangappa Myageri, not to

inform anyone. It is further stated that the

daguther-in-law of complainant namely

Neelamma i.e. wife of deceased Sagar was

having illicit relationship with accused No.1

and all the accused persons have killed his son

for the illicit relationship. The said complaint

came to be registered in Crime No.30/2021 of

Market Police Station, Belagavi for the

aforesaid offences. The Police have arrested

this appellant/accused No.3 on 24.02.2021 and

remanded to judicial custody. The police after

completion of investigation have filed the

charge sheet for the aforesaid offences and

now the case is pending in Spl.Case

No.128/2021 on the file of the III Addl. District

and Sessions Court, Belagavi. The appellant

/accused No.3 filed Crl.Misc.No.608/2021

seeking bail and the same came to be rejected

by the III Addl. District and Sessions Court,

Belagavi by order dated 05.07.2021. The said

order has been challenged in the present

appeal.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant/accused

No.3 and learned HCGP for the respondent

No.1/State.

4. In-spite of service of notice to respondent

No.2, he remained absent and unrepresented.

5. It would be the contention of learned

counsel appearing for the appellant/accused

No.3 that the appellant is innocent, he has not

committed any offence and he has been falsely

implicated as he was relative of accused No.2.

It is his further submission that even though

the deceased was missing since 11.02.2021,

the missing complaint came to be filed on

16.02.2021 and there is a delay in filing the

said complaint. The dead body which is found

on 22.02.2021 was in unidentifiable condition

and there is no material to connect the said

body with that of deceased Sagar Pujeri. There

was no threat for CW.8-Mallesh as he was

asked by the police on 12.02.2021, which is a

day after the alleged incident. It is his further

submission that statement of the eyewitness-

CW.8/Mallesh is concocted which has been

recorded after 11 days of the incident. It is

submitted that there was no hurdle for CW.8-

Mallesh to inform the incident to the police at

the earliest. The charge sheet has been filed

and therefore the appellant is not required for

any custodial interrogation. The appellant's

marriage was fixed on 22.02.2021 and he was

busy in preparation of his marriage and he has

not at all involved in the alleged incident.

Without looking to these aspects, the learned

Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition of

the appellant/accused No.3, which requires

interference by this Court. With this he prayed

to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing

for respondent No.1/State would contend that

the offences alleged against appellant/accused

No.3 is heinous offence punishable with death

or imprisonment for life. CW.8/Mallesh is the

only eyewitness, in his statement before the

Court and also before the Judicial Magistrate

recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has

specifically stated about the overt acts of the

appellant/accused No.3 and his version

corroborates the injuries noted in the post

mortem report. The doctor who conducted the

post mortem examination has opined that

death is due to the strangulation by thread and

hard object. The rod and other articles used

for commission of offence have been recovered

at the instance of the accused. The bottle

which is seized has been sent to FSL, report

contains opinion that it contains presence of

'Diazepam'. It is his further submission that

charge sheet material shows prima facie case

against the appellant/accused No.3 and if he is

granted bail, there is a threat to the

complainant and eyewitnesses to the incident.

Considering all these aspects, the learned

Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail

petition of the appellant, which does not

require any interference by this Court. With

this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. Having regard to the submission made by

the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1, this Court has gone through

the charge sheet records and order passed by

the Sessions Court.

8. The accusation leveled against the

appellant/accused No.3 is that, he along with

accused Nos.1 and 2 have strangulated the

deceased Sagar Pujeri with thread and

assaulted on his neck with rod and the same is

witnessed by CW.8- Mallesh Gangappa Myageri,

who is driver of the car in which the accused

Nos.1 to 3 and deceased travelled. The

deceased Sagar Pujeri, was the husband of

accused No.4. The accused No.1 had illicit

relationship with accused No.4. Therefore,

accused Nos.1 to 3 conspired to kill the

deceased Sagar, the husband of accused No.4

who is coming in the way of illicit relationship

of accused No.1 with accused No.4. The

deceased Sagar was found missing on

11.02.2021. The respondent No.2, the father of

Sagar filed the missing complaint after 5 days

i.e. on 16.02.2021. The respondent No.2 has

filed complaint after he received the

information from CW.8- Mallesh Gangappa

Myageri regarding the murder of his son by

accused Nos.1 to 3. The statement of

eyewitness i.e. CW.8- Mallesh Gangappa

Myageri came to be recorded on 22.02.2021. It

is submitted that CW.8- Mallesh Gangappa

Myageri kept quiet from 11.02.2021 till

22.02.2021 without informing the alleged

incident to anybody, which creates suspicion of

his statement. CW.8- Mallesh's car intercepted

by ASI of Nandgad police station on

12.02.2021 at 2.00 a.m., who was enquired by

the police but he did not reveal anything with

regard to the incident to them. It is submitted

that on perusal of the post mortem report, the

dead body was in unidentifiable condition and

it is only identified on the basis of voter

identity card alleged to have been found on the

spot. If there was any threat to CW.8, then he

ought not to have revealed the information to

the complainant. As the charge sheet has been

filed, the appellant/accused No.3 is not

required for any custodial interrogation and he

is not having criminal antecedents. Without

considering all these aspects, the learned

Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition of

the appellant/accused No.3, which requires

interference by this Court. The main objection

of the prosecution is that if, the

appellant/accused No.3 is granted with bail, he

will threaten the complainant and other

prosecution witnesses can be met with by

imposing stringent conditions.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case

and submission of the counsel, this Court is of

the view that there are valid grounds for

setting aside the impugned order and granting

bail to the appellant/accused No.3 subject to

terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass

the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The impugned order dated 05.07.2021

passed in Crl.Misc.No.608/2021 by the III

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is

set aside. Consequently, the

Crl.Misc.No.608/2021 stands allowed. The

appellant/accused No.3 is granted bail in Crime

No.30/2021 of Market Police Station, Belagavi,

subject to the following conditions:

i) The appellant/accused No.3 shall

execute a personal bond for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)

with one surety for the like sum to

the satisfaction of the jurisdictional

Court.

ii) The appellant/accused No.3 shall not

indulge in tampering the prosecution

witnesses.

     iii) The    appellant/accused       No.3        shall

         attend    the   Court    on   all   dates      of

         hearing    unless   exempted        and      co-

         operate    in   speedy   disposal      of    the

         case.




                                    Sd/-
                                   JUDGE




RM