Hanumesh Nayak and Others vs The State of Karnataka

P.D. Waingankar, J.—Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for their enlargement on bail in Koppal Town Police Station Crime No. 63/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B , 109 , 302 , 201 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

The petitioners in Crl. P. No. 101094/2015 are accused Nos. 4 to 9. Petitioner in Crl. P. No. 101095/2015 is accused No. 3 in the crime.

The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as under:

Accused No. 3-Hanumesh Nayak is the member of Zilla Panchayath, Koppal. Accused No. 4 is his son. Accused No. 3 being Zilla Panchayath member was carrying out some government contract works through his son accused No. 4 and the brother of accused No. 3. Since the work carried out by them was substandard work, the deceased Yallalinga, a college going student from Kanakapur village in Gangavathi Taluk used to expose their commission and omissions. On 06.01.2015, he gave a interview to a TV channel "Suvarna Siri" regarding the quality of work carried out by accused No. 4, the son of accused No. 3. His interview was telecast in the TV channel continuously for two days and thereby accused No. 3-Hanumesh Nayak was exposed to the public. Enraged by the act of the deceased, the accused No. 3 alongwith other accused on 09.01.2015 hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. On the same day, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the investigation of accused No. 3 went to the house of deceased and gave him life threat for having given TV interview. On 10.01.2015, accused No. 2-Parashuram took him on a motorcycle to Basarihalli village and introduced him to accused Nos. 5 to 9 the friends of accused No. 4. Accused No. 3 instigated accused Nos. 7 to 9 to finish the deceased. He expressed about the danger to his life to his cousin sister Suma. On 11.01.2015 at about 10.00 a.m., deceased Yallalinga left the house in order to go to Gangavathi. But he did not return. Accused Nos. 5 to 9 followed him like his shadow in order to commit his murder at the instigation of accused No. 3. He apprehended danger to his life imminent from the accused. Therefore, he informed the same to Maruthi, PSI, Kanakagiri, Doddanagouda, Veeresha Saalone, Durgappa Madanalli, Vinay Kanakagiri and emergency No. 100 through his mobile. When he came to Koppal Railway Station, he was chased by accused No. 5 Durgappa, accused No. 6-Manoj, accused No. 7-Nanda Kumar, accused No. 8 -- Manjunath, accused No. 9-Yamanoorappa and he was assaulted by accused No. 5 with a reaper over his head. Thereby, he fell unconscious by the side of railway track. The accused brought him and made him to lie down on a railway track while he was in unconscious state and thereby a goods train ran over him causing his death. The body was cut into two pieces. Upon information, the sister of the deceased and others came to the spot. They thought that it is a railway accident. UDR crime was registered in Gadag Railway police station in UDR No. 2/2015. During the inquest proceedings over the dead body, a mobile and a death note were seized from the pant pocket of the deceased. In the death note, it was written that in the event of his death these accused should be held responsible. A complaint came to be lodged by Manjula sister of the deceased thereby Crime No. 63/2015 came to be registered in Koppal Town police Station. The investigation did not progress. It was handed over to COD. During the course of investigation, all these accused were arrested. Their voluntary statements came to be recorded. They confessed having killed the deceased and the modus operandi adopted by them. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.

The applications filed by these petitioners for their enlargement on bail before the Sessions Judge came to be rejected. Therefore, they have filed these petitions for their enlargement on bail on the ground that they are innocent, they are falsely implicated, they are coming from respectable family, there is no material to point towards the guilt of the accused. The investigation is completed, the case fully rests on circumstantial evidence, they are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court and to offer proper surety for their release on bail.

The learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the bail petition. In the statement of objections, it is contended that accused No. 3 is a rowdy-sheeter involved in number of criminal cases, the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation has collected enough material so as to point out the guilt of these accused. The alleged offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The accused No. 3 being a rowdy-sheeter is a menace to the society. If the accused are enlarged on bail, they would tamper with the prosecution witnesses and thereby nobody would dare to come and depose the truth before the Court. The accused are all habitual offenders. Some of them are hired Supari killers. Hence, for all these reasons, the Government Pleader has sought for rejection of the petitions.

Heard Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent/State. Perused the records.

Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the two circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are the death note said to have been written by the deceased and the extra-judicial confession made by the accused, which according to the learned counsel is weak piece of evidence. The learned counsel while taking the Court through statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer would submit that at the time of the inquest panchanama no chits or death note was found in the pant pocket of the deceased and subsequently after about 2 to 3 months, the death note has been created so as to implicate these accused in the crime. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, And the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Sahadevan and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, in support of his argument, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioners have made out prima-facie case for enlargement of all the petitioners on bail.

Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, placing reliance on observation made by the Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. N.C.T. Delhi and Another, as to the principles to be kept in mind while granting or rejecting bail sought for dismissal of both the petitions.

Perused the investigation papers and the decisions relied upon by the parties.

The Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. N.C.T. Delhi and Another, has culled out the principles to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail. It is stated that while granting the bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Keeping in mind the above principles, let me consider the bail petitions filed by the petitioners.

This is a case of murder most foul as in the best it is. The police after completion of investigation have filed charge-sheet against all the petitioners. The alleged offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The accused No. 3 is a rowdy-sheeter though he is a member of Zilla Panchayath. Accused No. 4 the son of accused No. 3 used to undertake civil contract works such as construction of roads, drainage, janatha houses. The deceased had given an interview to the TV channel "Suvarna Siri" on 06.01.2015, whereby he is said to have exposed the substandard work carried out by the son of accused No. 3 a Zilla Panchayath member. The investigation discloses that the interview given by the deceased was telecast on the "Suvarna Siri" channel for two days continuously. The witnesses whose statements have been recorded have stated that accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to the house of the deceased on 09.01.2015 and gave life threat to him for having given interview to TV channel and for having exposed accused No. 3. The statements of the witnesses also reveal that the deceased was taken to Basarahalli by accused No. 4 and was introduced to accused Nos. 5 to 9. Some of the witnesses particularly Gavisiddappa has stated in his statement having seen the accused Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 in Koppal Railway Station at about 4.00 p.m. with whom he had conversation. During the course of investigation, the photographs of the two accused persons following the deceased on their motorcycle while the deceased was proceeding in a bus captured by the deceased in his mobile are developed and produced. They have been identified as two accused out of 9. The accused made extra-judicial confession regarding their complicity in the murder of deceased-Yallalinga. The death note left behind by the deceased is seized during the course of investigation and was referred to handwriting experts who inturn opined that death note is in the handwriting of the deceased-Yallalinga. The contents of the death note are as under:-

The call records are also secured by the investigating officer which indicates that prior to his murder, he tried to contact the police inspector Maruthi and others namely Doddanagouda, Veeresha Saalone, Durgappa Madanalli, Vinaya Kanakagiri out of danger to his life. There is strong motive behind the commission of murder. Thus, without deliberating much on the merits or otherwise of the case, it is suffice to say that the investigating officer has collected prima-facie material to speak about the involvement of these accused in the murder of the deceased. As observed by the Supreme Court what is to be kept in mind for the purpose of granting the bail is reasonable grounds for believing instead of the evidence. The case made against the accused appears to be genuine case. The prosecution will be able to produce prima-facie evidence to prove the charge. If the persons involved in ghastly murder of this nature are enlarged on bail, it would definitely give a wrong signal to the society at large. It is for all these reasons, I pass the following

Crl. P. Nos. 101095/2015 and 101094/2015 are dismissed.