Karnataka High Court
Nagaraja Alias Nagaraja vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2022
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNAT AKA
DHARWAD B ENCH
DAT ED THIS THE 05 T H DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'B LE MR. JU ST ICE P.N.DESAI
CRL.A.NO.100053 OF 2022
C /W
CRL.A.NO.100089 OF 2022
IN CRL.A.NO.100053/2022
BETWEEN
RAMAJINEYALU ALIAS RAMAJINEYALU
S/O. NALLAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
OCC. AUTO DRIV ER
R/O. 8TH CROSS, SATHYAVANI NAGAR
KOLAGAL ROAD, BALLARI-583101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
WOMEN POLICE STATION BALLARI-583101
2. SMT. SHRAVANI,
W/O. ANOOP KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SCHOOL ROAD,
2
BANDIHATTI, COWLBAZAR,
BALLARI, KARNATAKA-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1)
(R2- SERVED WITH NOTICE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14 (A)
(2) OF SC AND ST ACT, SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI DATED
18.01.2021 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BALLARI IN SPL. CASE
NO.816/2021 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT
(ACCUSED NO.4) ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.74/2021
REGISTERED BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, BALLARI
FOR THE OFFENCES 364, 120B, 302, 394, 201 R/W
SEC. 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2) (V) (a) OF SC /ST
ACT, 1989.
IN CRL.A.NO.100089/2022
BETWEEN
NAGARAJA ALIAS NAGARAJA
S/O. B SREENIVASULU
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER
R/O. NEAR ENGLISH CHURCH
BCC GROUND, FORT, BALLARI
BALLARI- 583121
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.B ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH WOMEN POLICE
3
STATION BALLARI)
REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
DHARWAD- 580001
2. SMT SHRAVANI
W/O. ANOOP KUMAR
AGE. 40 YEARS
R/O. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SCHOOL
VIDYALAYA ROAD,
BANDIHATTI
COWL BAZAR, BALLARI- 583101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R-1)
(R2-SERVED WITH NOTICE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14 (A)
(2) OF SC AND ST ACT, SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BALLARI DATED
02.12.2021 ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3
ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.74/2021 REGISTERED IN
WOMEN POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES 364,
120B, 302, 394, 201, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)
(V) (a) OF SC/ST ACT, 1989 PENDING TRIAL OF THE
CASE BEFORE I ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.03.2022, COMING
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
JUDGEMENT
Crl.A.No.100089/2022 is filed by one
Nagaraja, who is accused No.3 and
Crl.A.No.100053/2022 is filed by accused No.4 by
name Ramanjineyalu @ Ramanjineyalu under
Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter for short 'Cr.P.C.') and also under
Section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act),
1989 (hereinafter for short 'SC/ST Act, 1989').
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that a
missing complaint is registered in Crime
No.74/2021 of Woman's Police Station, Ballari on
the basis of information given by one Sravani on
13.04.2021, stating that her mother Jayamma
and her younger sister Kum.Ramalakshmi were
missing. It is further case of prosecution that on
06.06.2021 one Venkatesh who is known to this
informant Sravani came to her house. The
informant told him regarding missing of her
mother and younger sister. Then, Venkatesh told
her that on 20.03.2021 at about 2.30p.m., he
has seen mother and sister of the complainant
along with accused No.1 near Belagal cross. They
were going in a white color car.
3. It is alleged that accused no.1-Mallaiah had
financial transaction with his sister Ramalakshmi.
Therefore, on suspicion, she again lodged second
complaint on 07.12.2021 which came to be
registered by Ballari Women Police Station Crime
No.74/2021 for the offence punishable under
Section 364 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for
short 'IPC'). Accordingly, on 08.06.2021, the
accused no.1-Mallaiah was arrested by Police. On
enquiry, he gave voluntary statement and stated
that he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- loan from
Ramalakshmi and the interest on it is about
Rs.2,00,000/-. Totally, Rs.3,00,000/- is due to
Ramalaxmi. She was insisting him to return the
money. She was abusing him. But as it was a
lock down, the said accused no.1 took some
time. But, as she was abusing him continuously,
he planned to take away life of said Ramalaxmi.
Accordingly, he conspired with his friend Surappa
@ Suri- i.e. accused no.2 to kill her. On
20.03.2021, he took this Ramalaxmi and her
mother in Swift Dezire Maruthi car bearing reg.
No.KA-20N-7823 to temple. On 21.03.2021 at
about 9.30 p.m. near L.L.C. canal, he assaulted
both of them with a auto start kicker rod and
both accused no.1 and accused no.2threw the
dead bodies in the said canal. It is further case
of the prosecution that again, accused no.1 gave
voluntary statement on 15.06.2021 that accused
nos.3 and 4 have also helped him to cause
disappearance of the dead bodies by throwing
bodies in the canal. Accordingly, these accused
Nos.3 and 4 are arrested on 15.06.2021.
Accused no.1 has again stated that, he informed
the accused nos.2 to 4 that he will give
Rs.2,00,000/- to them if they helped him to take
away their life. The Role of the accused nos.3
and 4 is that they came in the Auto rickshaw and
threw dead body of Ramalaxmi in the canal. It is
the case of the prosecution that accused no.1
took gold chain from the neck of Jayamma and
based on the voluntary statement of accused
no.1, these persons are implicated in this case.
They filed bail application before the Sessions
Judge. Their application came to be rejected by
order dated 18.01.2022 in respect of accused
no.4 and by order dated 02.12.2021 in respect of
accused no.3. The Police after completing the
investigation have filed charge sheet against the
accused no.1 to accused no.4 for the offence
punishable under Section 364, 201, 120B, 394
r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v-a) of
SC/ST POA Act, 1989.
4. Heard Sri.M.B.Gundawade, learned counsel
and Smt.Sowbhagya Wakkund, learned counsel
for accused No.4 in Crl.A.No.100053/2022 and
Sri.Anwar Basha counsel for accused no.3 in
Crl.A.No.100089/2022 and Smt.Girija Hiremath,
learned HCGP for respondent-State.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued
the common points. It is contended that the
entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.
The accused Nos.3 and 4 are implicated only on
the alleged second voluntary statement of
accused No.1. There is no material to implicate
these two persons. No overt acts or assault is
attributed to both of them. There is no enmity
between appellants as well as deceased. Entire
allegations and material shows involvement of
the accused No.1. The allegation is based only
against accused No.1 and at the most some
allegations in respect of accused no.2. There are
no eye witnesses to the incident and statement
of witnesses is that they have seen accused No.1
along with complainants mother and sister in
Switft Desire car as alleged by one Venkatesh.
6. Both the counsels have argued that no
recovery is made from these appellants. No
incriminating articles were seized from these
appellants and there mobiles are seized. It is
further argued that the appellants are in custody
from 15.06.2021. Investigation is already
completed and charge sheet is filed on
31.08.2021. It is stated by investigation officer,
in his report that dead bodies are not traced till
today. So, there is no material to show that as to
how the death of those two female persons was
caused. There is no whisper about accused nos.3
and 4 who are appellants in the first voluntary
statement alleged to have given by accused
No.1. Nobody has seen accused nos.3 and 4 with
the deceased at any point of time. There are no
criminal cases filed or pending against these
persons. They have no criminal background and
no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted
that their family members are entirely depending
upon them. Since, there is no material to connect
these persons, prays to enlarge them on bail by
setting aside the order passed by the First Addl.
District and Sessions Judge in Spl. Case
No.816/2021 in crime No.74/2021 by order dated
08.01.2022 and 02.12.2021 passed in respect of
accused Nos.4 and 3 respectively and prays to
grant bail.
7. Against this, the learned HCGP argued that
there is a statement of one Venkatesh who has
last seen accused No.1 with deceased. Based on
his second voluntary statement, these accused
Nos.3 and 4 were implicated. It is further stated
that CW.16-Rudrappa and CW.17-
Hanumanthappa have stated in their statement
before the Police, the presence of two persons in
the Auto rickshaw and the promissory note to the
extent of Rs.20,000/- was recovered from the
house of Jayamma which shows the name of
Sri.Ramajineyalu, as per seizure dated
01.07.2021. The learned HCGP argued that the
charge sheet shows involvement of these
appellants in the crime. Though golden
ornaments belongs to one of deceased was
recovered from the possession of accused no.1,
but there is a conspiracy entered by these four
persons. It has to be gone into and decided only
during trial. Double murders are committed by
these persons and that too two women were
missing and their bodies are not traced till today.
Therefore, this is a heinous offence which has
impact on the society. If these appellants are
enlarged on bail, then they may tamper
prosecution witnesses and tried to threaten the
witnesses. At this stage, the prosecution has
produced material to show the involvement of
these appellants in the crime. Looking to the
nature of offence and its gravity, the learned
Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail
petition filed by them. No fresh grounds are
made out or any new grounds are urged before
this Court to grant bail. All the grounds urged
are already considered by the Sessions Court and
Sessions Court has rightly rejected the bail
petitions. Hence, learned HCGP prays to dismiss
both the appeals.
8. I have perused the charge sheet and other
materials available on record.
9. It is evident that accused nos.1 and 2 are
arrested on 08.06.2021 and it is also evident
that the FIR came to be registered on 13.04.2021
by Smt.Sravani in Crime No.52/2021 stating that
her mother and sister were missing. That on
06.06.2021, one Venkatesh known to her mother
came to her house and informed that he has seen
accused no.1 going in a car on 20.03.2021 at
2.30 pm along with accused no.1. Hence, again
second complaint came to be lodged on
07.06.2021 in Crime no.74/2021 and accused
nos.1 and 2 are arrested.
10. It is further allegation that accused nos.1
and 2 have given voluntary statement. The
allegation against these appellants is that on
15.06.2021, the accused no.1 gave his further
second voluntary statement implicating present
appellants. It is evident that it is accused no.1
who is last seen with the deceased according to
prosecution. It is evident that no recovery is
made at the instance of these two appellants.
There are no eye witnesses to the incident.
Entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.
It is evident that on the basis of statement of
complainant dated 07.06.2021, case was
registered only against accused no.1-Mallaiah.
Thereafter, on the statement of accused no.1
again further statement of complainant, was
recorded on 08.06.2021 and accused nos.1 and 2
are implicated. Even in first voluntary statement
of accused no.1, according to prosecution he has
not stated any role of these accused nos.3 and 4.
His voluntary statement dated 08.06.2021 states
that only accused no.1 assaulted deceased and
with the help of accused no.2 they have thrown
the dead bodies in the said canal. Even
voluntary statement of accused no.2 dated
08.06.2021 also does not states about these
accused nos.3 and 4. Remand application dated
09.06.2021, indicates only the role of accused
nos.1 and 2. Even the property stated to belong
to one of the misusing women was recovered at
the instance of accused no.1 and according to his
further statement, these appellants are also
called by him and he gave a total different
version. It is stated that these petitioners were
in Auto rickshaw at 9.30 p.m. and accused no.1
assaulted both women with a iron rod and
accused no.1 has taken gold ornaments
belonging to Jayamma and accused no.2.-Sourav
@ Suri has thrown the dead bodies in canal and
these appellants have thrown the dead body of
Ramalaxmi in canal. There is no witness who has
last seen these appellants with the deceased or
with accused no.1. Even the witness Rudrappa's
statement before Police indicates that at 8.30
p.m. itself when he was going there one lady is
making noise and two mail persons were sitting
away from canal in auto rickshaw was parked and
two persons were sitting in it. When he returned
at 9.45 p.m., he found a car and there were two
male persons in auto and he could not see the
ladies. This statement will not implicate the
accused nos.3 and 4 at this state and even his
further statement will not help at this stage. The
car driver has stated that he took these two
persons i.e. appellant nos.3 and 4 and he
returned to Ballari.
11. It is true that two lives are lost. Of course,
their bodies are still not traced. It is evident that
accused no.1 is known to the family of
complainant and according to the complainant,
her sister and mother are always visiting temple
and her sister was doing finance business. This
accused no.1 was very close to his sister and he
used to attend her work. The allegation is that he
had borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- and interest accrued
on is Rs.2,00,000/-, totally he is due sum
Rs.3,00,000/- to Ramalakshmi and she insisted
him to return the same, so, accused no.1 along
with other accused have murdered her. It is
evident that only on the basis of say of accused
no.1, these appellants i.e appellant nos.3 and 4
are implicated, that too not at the earlier
voluntary statement but at the subsequent
alleged voluntary statement. It is also evident
that the Jayamma and Ramalakshmi belongs to
Reddy community and this Sravani married one
Anoop kumar, person belonging to SC/ST
community. The said Ramalakshmi is not married
and her father left them. Mobile phone track
records or call records are not produced to show
that whether these appellants were present at
the said place. It is allegation that accused no.1
gave supari to accused nos.2 to 4 to kill
Ramalakshmi. But it is stated that number of
times it is postponed for one or the other
reasons. Therefore, looking into statement of
witnesses and the material collected by the
prosecution and the charge sheet, it is evident
that petitioners are no more required for any
investigation. Initially, it is alleged that accused
nos.1 and 2 have committed the said offence. But
subsequently, these appellants were implicated.
Therefore, looking into the material placed by the
prosecution, against these two appellants, the
allegation of assault is also stated against
accused nos.1 and 2 and recovery of ornaments
is from the house of accused no.1, according to
prosecution, therefore, looking into the
averments of the bail petition and material
placed by the prosecution, it is evident that no
overt act is forthcoming at this stage by these
appellants.
12. It is settled principle of law that bail is a
rule and rejection is an exception. While granting
or rejecting the bail application, the Court will
have to take into consideration, (1) the
seriousness of the offence, (2) character of the
accused, (3) circumstances which are peculiar to
accused, (4) reasonable probabilities of presence
of the accused not being secured at trial, (5)
reasonable apprehension of witnesses being
tampered with and (6) larger interest of public or
the state and similar other considerations, which
arise when a court is asked to admit the accused
to bail in a non-bailable offence.
13. Hence, keeping in mind the above settled
principles and the material placed before this
Court, in my considered view the apprehension of
the prosecution can be meted by imposing
stringent conditions on the petitioners. In view of
facts and circumstances of the case, they are
entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petitions filed by the petitioners /
accused Nos.4 and 3 respectively under Section
439 of Cr.P.C. are allowed.
Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.4-
Ramajineyalu and petitioner/accused No.3-
Nagaraj respectively are ordered to be enlarged
on bail, in Crime No.74/2021 of Woman's Police
Station, Ballari for the offence punishable under
Sections 364, 302, 120B, 201, 394 r/w Section
34 of IPC, on they executing a personal bond for
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with
two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction
of the Court of trial or Committal Court where
the case is now pending on the following
conditions:
i) The petitioners shall not tamper
the prosecution witnesses directly
or indirectly in any manner.
ii) The petitioners shall not make any
inducement, threat to any of the
prosecution witnesses or prevent
them from deposing before the
Investigating Officer or before the
Court whatever matter within their
knowledge in respect of this
offence.
iii) The petitioners shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the Court without
prior permission of the Court till
disposal of the case.
iv) The petitioners shall appear before
the trial Court on all the dates of
hearing unless they are exempted
for any genuine reasons by the
Court.
v) The petitioners shall not involve in
commission of any criminal
offences.
vi) The petitioners shall furnish proof
of their residential address,
documents to Court and
investigating officer and they shall
inform the Court / investigating
officer, if there is any change in
the address.
SD/-
JUDGE
Hmb/-
