Thimmesh vs State By Hebbagodi Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 9604 Kant

                            1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.873 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

THIMMESH
S/O LATE SHIVAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
C/O JAGADISH,
NEAR DEVIBAR,
GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106.

PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
NANDANA HOSUR VILALGE,
THALYA HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK - 577 527,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
                                            ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. G. MANIVANNAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE BY HEBBAGODI POLICE,
       BENGALURU,
       BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     MURTHY V.K.
       S/O KANNAN,
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
       R/AT SHIKARIPALYA VILLAGE ,
                               2

     JIGANI HOBLI,
     ANEKAL TALUK - 562 106.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

     (BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K, HCGP FOR R.1;
         R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)2 OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
APPELLANTS ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRL.MISC. NO.798/2022
IN CRIME NO.23/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 201, 302 OF IPC AND 3(2)(V)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF II-ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING;



                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by accused No.1 praying to

enlarge him on bail in Crime No.23/2022 registered at

Hebbagodi Police station, Bengaluru District for offences

punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant,

learned HCGP for respondent No.1/ State and perused the

material on record.

3. Respondent No.2/ defacto complainant has been

served, but there is no representation.

4. The appellant is alleged to have committed the

murder of one Sagar along with other accused persons by

assaulting him with hands and wooden club on his head and

other parts of the body. The prosecution has alleged that

accused No.2 had taken a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the

deceased and she had not returned the said amount. In this

connection, the deceased was insulting and black mailing her.

Hence, accused No.2 informed the matter to accused No.1, a

known person to her. Accused No.1 along with the juvenile

conflict with law hatched a plan to commit the murder of

Sagar and on 15.01.2022 at 7.45 p.m, they took the

deceased to survey No.350 of Hulimangala village and

assaulted him with hands and wooden club and committed

the murder. Thereafter they burnt the dead body by pouring

petrol, so as to cause disappearance of the evidence.

5. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The

entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The incident

is alleged to have taken place on 15.01.2022 at about

7.45 p.m. The half burnt dead body was noticed by one

Murthy on 18.01.2022 and he informed the matter to the

police, on the basis of which the aforesaid case was registered

against unknown person.

6. It is alleged that accused No.2 had borrowed a

sum of Rs.20,000/- from the deceased and since she had not

returned the said amount, the deceased was insulting and

black mailing her. Therefore she hatched a plan with accused

No.1 to commit his murder.

7. The prosecution is relying on the last seen

incident, the recovery of mobile phone of the deceased,

weapon used in the offence etc., In sofar as recovery of

mobile phone is concerned, it belongs to the deceased and

the same is said to have been recovered from the house of

accused No.1. Even though, the learned counsel for the

appellant contends that the said mobile phone does not stand

in the name of deceased, the material collected by the

prosecution shows that the mobile phone belongs to the

deceased and it was recovered from the appellant/ accused

No.1.

8. The prosecution has also relied on the last seen

incident, wherein all the accused were seen along with the

deceased in the shop belonging to CW13 on 15.01.2022. It is

submitted that similar allegations are made against accused

No.2 as well as juvenile conflict with law and they have been

enlarged on bail. In sofar as the overt act attributed against

appellant is concerned, it is alleged that he assaulted the

deceased with a club on his head and other parts of the body.

9. The appellant was arrested on 21.01.2022. At his

instance the mobile phone belonging to the deceased was

recovered, which is a strong circumstance appearing against

him. The overt act of assaulting the deceased with a club on

his head etc., is also attributed against the appellant. The

post mortem report shows that cause of death is due to head

injury and on account of heavy bleeding.

10. Learned HCGP submits that in sofar as accused

No.2 is concerned, she being woman and having a minor child

was enlarged on bail and on that ground the appellant is not

entitled for bail.

11. Having perused the material on record, I find that

there is a prima facie case against the appellant for having

committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment

for life. Offence committed is heinous in nature. Hence,

appellant is not entitle for the relief of bail.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

LL