Deepak Yallapa Shinndhe and Others vs State of Karnataka

Rathnakala, J.—These petitions are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No. 211/2014 of Garag Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3(2)(V) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

After investigation, chargesheet is filed by the respondent-Investigating Officer in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The petitioner in Crl. P. No. 100391/2015 is arrayed as accused No. 5 and the petitioners in Crl. P. No. 100369/2015 are arrayed as accused Nos. 6 and 8 respectively in the charge sheet. The case of the prosecution is, the first accused in pursuance of his previous enmity and fury against the deceased, with the connivance of the accused No. 2, advanced Rs. 5,00,000/- to accused Nos. 3 to 10 for causing the murder of the deceased. The accused Nos. 4 and 10 took the deceased in a car bearing registration No. KA-26/M-1825. Later the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 to 8 joined them, dragged the deceased from the car, accused No. 5 took talwar from the car bearing registration No. KA-51/2203 which belongs to accused No. 3, assaulted the deceased thereby caused bleeding injuries. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 stabbed him with a knife. Thereafter the accused Nos. 4 to 6 and 10 took the body of the deceased in Tata Indica Car bearing registration No. KA-26/M-1825 which belongs to the deceased. The car proceeded towards Kittur while the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 7 followed in Tata Sumo bearing registration No. KA-51/2203 and other accused followed in the car bearing registration No. KA-29/M-4705. On 27.08.2014 at 1.00 p.m., the accused No. 10 again assaulted the deceased with talwar on noticing that the deceased was still alive, thereby caused his death. Thereafter they disposed of the dead body at N.H.-4 near Dasikoppa village.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer seized the abandoned Tata Indica car from Kittur bus stand on 27.08.2014. On tracing the owner of the car/CW-17, it came to light that the accused Nos. 4 and 10 had taken the car from him under the pretext of attending a party. Accused Nos. 4 and 10 were arrested on 02.09.2014. On their voluntary statements, other accused are arrested on 03.09.2014. It is the further case of the prosecution that the chance fingerprint found on the car were sent for experts opinion and the said fingerprint tallies with the fingerprint of accused No. 5/the petitioner of Crl. P. No. 100391/2015. At the instance of accused No. 5, the Investigating Officer has recovered cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- alleged to be the supari amount, shared among the co-accused and also 3 mobile phones belonging to him. From the petitioners in Crl. P. No. 100369/2015 i.e. accused No. 6 cash amount of Rs. 5,000/- and one mobile phone and from accused Nos. 5 Rs. 5,000/- cash amount and a mobile phone are seized.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 100391/2015 that admittedly the car was abandoned in the public place and was noticed by the Investigating Officer at the early morning of 27.08.2014. So also the dead body was found at the same time at a distance of around 17 km. There is no material from the chargesheet papers as to from which part of the car chance fingerprint was taken by the experts. Admittedly, the door of the car was open and the possibility of the public having touched the body of the car from inside and outside is always there. The fingerprint having not been collected under a mahazar, it cannot be said that the chance fingerprint now examined was found on the body of the car. Other incriminating material of the prosecution against him is only the cash amount which cannot be the foolproof against him.

It is the submission on behalf of the petitioners in Crl. P. No. 100369/2015 that they are arrested only on the voluntary statements of arrested accused Nos. 4 and 10. Except the seizure of the cash amount, there is no other incriminating material which can link them to the alleged offence.

It is the submission on behalf of both the petitioners that since the charge sheet is filed, their custody is no more required by the Investigating Officer and it may consume sufficient time for the trial to reach its conclusion. Under the circumstance, they may be enlarged on bail subject to any conditions.

Learned Government Pleader while opposing the petition submits as regards the accused No. 5 is concerned, the finger print of accused No. 5 tallies with the fingerprint found on the car, that links him to the car in which the body of the deceased was carried and thereafter done to death. The bloodstains were found on the seat and foot mat of the car. The FSL report with regard to these materials is still awaited. As regards, the petitioners in Crl. P. No. 100369/2015 are concerned, though they were arrested on the voluntary statements of the other accused, the recovery of the cash amount corroborates with the case of the prosecution that the murder was committed for the Supari amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- advanced by the first petitioner. They are professionals, if enlarged, they will abscond forever and thereby hamper the trial.

The fingerprint expert, though cited as a witness in the charge sheet, it appears that his statement is not recorded, and thereby, at this stage, it cannot be gathered from which part of the car the Investigating Officer was able to collect the fingerprint, which tallies with the fingerprint of accused No. 5. Keeping this piece of evidence aside, the other incriminating material seized from the possession all the three accused persons is only the cash amount, which has to be established by the prosecution during trial that it was the amount which was advanced for them to murder the deceased. The scientific evidence/F.S.L. report may lend some conclusive proof about the indulgence of the accused persons in the murder of the deceased. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that since it takes some more time for the case to reach its logical end, there is no impediment to enlarge these petitioners on bail.

Accordingly, petitions are allowed. Petitioners are enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions:

i) They shall execute self bonds for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two local sureties for a likesum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.

ii) Until and unless the Investigating Officer confirms the identity address of the sureties, the concerned Court shall not accept the sureties.

iii) They shall attend the Court regularly and punctually.

iv) They shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.