Byojya vs State Of Karnataka

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J

This petition is filed by accused No.3 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.95/2020 of Halavagalu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with Section

34 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).

The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Anand Nayak has filed complaint stating that, he is the permanent resident of Madligeri Tanda and

he has three brothers and two sisters. His sister by name Samaki Bai was married to one Kotresh Nayak around 14 years ago and due to difference

between them Samaki Bail was residing with complainant and was doing coolie work. The deceased Samaki Bai had developed relationship with one

Mr. Lokesh Nayak (A1) who had assured to marry her. The deceased had paid him Rupees three to four lakhs. The deceased about one year prior to

the incident started demanding the accused No.1 to marry her or to return the amount received by him. It is further stated that, even Duggayya Nayak

(A2) had also obtained around Rs.20,000/- from Samaki Bai about four years back to the incident. On 13.10.2020 at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased

came and informed the complainant that the accused No.2 - Duggayya had called her telephonically and told her to receive the dues. Therefore, the

complainant left her upto Madlageri village and from there she went to Harapahalli by Tempo. She did not return on that day and on 14.10.2020 at

about 2.30 p.m, the friend of complainant namely Mallesh Naik shown the photo of the dead woman which was sent on whatsapp to the complainant

which was that of the sister of the complainant. The complainant immediately along with others went to the spot who were informed that the body

was taken to the Hospital wherein they identified the dead body and thereafter he filed complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2. In the course of

Investigation, the petitioner/accused No.3 came to be arrested on 16.10.2020. After investigation, charge- sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1,

3 and 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The charge-sheet has not been filed against accused

No.2. The petitioner/accused No.3 has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.5395/2020 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by the III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete), by order dated 22.01.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State.

It would be the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner/accused No.3 is innocent and has not committed any offence

as alleged and he has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no motive for the accused No.3 to kill the deceased. On perusal of the complaint

the motive is against accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner/accused No.3 came to be impleaded only on the basis of his voluntary statement, except that

there no other materials. The case is based on the circumstantial evidence and there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The charge-sheet has been

filed and therefore the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. The accused No.1 has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal

Petition No.100510/2021 and accused No.4 has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.100201/2021 and therefore, the petitioner is

entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contends that, the offences alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offences punishable with

death or imprisonment for life. The overt act alleged against the petitioner/accused No.3 is that, he stabbed the deceased over her neck in his Bolero

pick up van and the corresponding injury has been noted by the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination in his report. The petitioner is not

entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity since the role of accused No.1 and 4 are different than the role of petitioner/accused No.3 against

whom serious overt acts are alleged. If the petitioner is granted bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With this, he

prayed to reject the petition.

Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has

gone through the charge sheet records.

As per the accusations in the charge-sheet, accused No.1 by promising the deceased to marry had received Rupees three to four lakhs from her. It

is stated that accused No.3 is the brother of accused No.1 and accused Nos.1,3 and 4 criminally conspired to kill the deceased and in furtherance of

such criminal conspiracy the accused No.3 caused the death of the deceased by stabbing with knife and thrown the dead body under a bridge called

Doddhalla and in order to destroy the evidence poured petrol and diesel on the dead body and lit fire. The accused No.3 was apprehended and his

voluntary statement was recorded. It is also stated that, incriminating materials were recovered at the instance of the accused No.3. There are no

eyewitnesses to the incident. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed.

Under such circumstances, the detention of the petitioner in judicial custody is not required for any custodial interrogation. There are no criminal

antecedents of the petitioner/accused No.3. The main objection of the prosecution is that, in case if the petitioner/accused No.3 is granted bail, the

petitioner is likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent

conditions.

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.3 shall be released on bail in Crime

No.95/2020 of Halavagalu Police Station, subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner/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. Due to COVID-19, the petitioner is permitted to furnish surety within two months. If circumstances arise, the

jurisdictional Court is permitted to extend the period for furnishing surety.

ii) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.