Karnataka High Court
Sri Vittal S/O Bhimappa Kamate vs State Of Karnataka on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22 N D DAY OF AUGUST 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 102176 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. VITTAL S/O. BHIMAPPA KAMATE
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KANKANAWADI, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI- 591317.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. ANAN D KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH RAIBA G POLI CE STATION,
BYSPP,
HIGH COURT DHA RWAD BENCH BUILDING
DHARWAD - 580051.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAS HAN TH V. MOGA LI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. SEEKI NG TO ALLOW THI S CRIMINAL PETITION AND
2
ORDER F OR RELEASE OF THE PETI TIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.48/ 2022 RAIBAG POLICE STATION
PUNISHABLE UND ER SECTION 302, 364, 120B AND 201 READ
WITH SECTION 34 OF I PC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE F OLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.1 under section
439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in
Crime No.48/2022 of Raibag Police Station registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 120B
and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on the
complaint of wife of the deceased-Shoukatsab alleging
that her husband said to be working as Mason went out on
24.02.2022 and he was informed that he will come to the
dinner but did not returned and next day morning he was
found dead. Immediately a complaint was registered
against unknown persons for the murdered of the
deceased. Thereafter, the Police arrest the petitioner on
27.02.2022 and remanded to judicial custody. After
completion of the investigation, the Police filed the charge
sheet. The petitioner/accused No.1 has filed Criminal
Miscellaneous No.5441/2022 seeking bail and the same
came to be rejected by learned VII Additional Sessions
Judge, Belagavi, Sitting at Chikkodi by order dated
26.07.2022. Therefore, petitioner/accused No.1 is before
this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the petitioner is innocent, he has not
committed any offence as alleged and he has been falsely
implicated in this case. There are no eye witnesses to the
incident and the case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence. Accused No.2 who is similarly
placed to that of accused No.1, has been granted bail by
this Court in Criminal Petition No.101577/2022 by order
dated 20.06.2022. Therefore, the petitioner/accused No.1
is also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity.
As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required
for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed to allow
the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader contended that the doctor has noted ten injuries
on the dead body of the deceased and out of those
injuries, injury Nos.1 to 4 are caused on head by sharp
weapon and injury Nos.5 to 10 are caused on head
brutally which correspondence is accusation leveled
against the petitioner and accused No.2 in the charge
sheet column No.17. CWs-15, 16, 17 and 18 have been
seen accused No.2 and the deceased together on
24.02.2022. The mobile phones of accused persons have
been recovered at their instance. On perusal of entire
charge sheet material, there is a prima facie case against
the petitioner for the offences alleged against him. If the
petitioner/accused No.1 is granted bail, he will tamper the
prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he
prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court
Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the
charge sheet records.
7. On perusal of the charge sheet it reveals that
the father of accused No.1 said to be convicted in S.C.
No.127/2010 and he was serving sentence in Hindalga Jail
in the year 2004. During that time the deceased-
Shoukatsab committed murder of the father of accused
No.1 and the case was registered against the deceased-
Shoukatsab. Subsequently, the deceased-Shoukatsab was
acquitted in S.C. No.127/2010 by the Special Court. The
appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal is pending
before this Court. When the deceased was released on
bail and working as Mason, the deceased and accused
No.2 become acquainted with each other while accused
No.2 was constructing the house of accused No.1.
Subsequently, accused No.1 came to know that the
deceased-Shoukatsab is the person who has committed
the murder of his father. So, accused No.1 hatched the
conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased and got
abducted the deceased on motorcycle and thereafter
committed his murder. The petitioner/accused No.1
assaulted the deceased with axe and accused No.2
assaulted the deceased on his head with stone and caused
grievous injuries, due to which the deceased died.
8. On perusal of records, especially the post
mortem report reveals that the death was caused due to
head injuries. There are ten injuries found on the dead
body of the deceased out of that, injury Nos.1 to 4 were
on the head which was brutal in manner. CWs-15 to 17
in their statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
stated that on the date of incident accused No.2 along
with the deceased came to garage for repair of
motorcycle. Thereafter, accused No.2 took the deceased
on his motorcycle and made him consuming alcohol, at
that time CW-18 has seen the deceased in the company of
accused persons. Subsequently, the deceased found
murdered and dead body found in the ditch. The
investigation is completed and charge sheet has been
filed. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The
entire case of the prosecution is based on the
circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has to
establish each of the circumstances at the trial. The
petitioner is in custody from 27.02.2022. As the charge
sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial
interrogation. The apprehension of the prosecution is that
if the petitioner/accused No.1 granted 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 granting bail subject to certain
terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is
allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.1 is
ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.48/2022 of
Raibag Police Station, subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond
for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
Only) with one surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii. The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering
the prosecution witnesses.
iii. The petitioner shall attend the Court on all
the dates of hearing, unless exempted, and
co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
SD/-
JUDGE
SMM
