K.S. Kuttaiah @ Harish @ Ravi Kumar vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner accused u/s 439 Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 40/2012.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as per averments of the complaint are that one Surya B.E. son of Eshwar, Manager of Sangeetha Lodge, gave a complaint on 18.06.2012 alleging that on 16.06.2012 at about 6.45 p.m. a person called Ravikumar aged about 40 years along with a lady aged about 30 years came to his lodge enquiring for a room and paid a sum of Rs. 800/- to him and registered his name in their ledger as Ravikumar and also stated his address and occupied room No. 106. After a day when their time is over, complainant tried to call them through the intercom phone, but when there was no response even after knocking the door, thereafter by 11.15 complainant Sunil opened the door by using their own key and saw that the person laying on the bed inside the rug. By opening the rug the complainant saw a lady laying naked and saw someone killed her by tying the plastic rope over the neck. Since Ravikumar booked the room and he was not there in the room and on suspect on him, the complainant lodged the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 IPC.

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

The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that there are no eye witness to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence which are to be established during the course of the trial. The counsel also made the submission that even looking to other materials on record, there is no prima facie case made out by the prosecution against the petitioner regarding his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by imposing any reasonable conditions petitioner may be admitted to bail.

As against tins the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that though there are no eye witness to the alleged incident, but the chain of circumstances is so complete that it will suggest the participation of the accused and prosecution placed that the prima facie material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record including the order passed by the Lower Court on the bail application. I have perused the charge sheet material and statement of C.W. 2 Sunil and also the statement of C.W. 3, who is the complainant of the said incident, both have consistently stated in their statement that the person named himself as Ravikumar came along with a lady and booked room No. 106 and he himself has made the entries in the register and on the next day when their turn was over in the lodge they tried to contact the person over the intercom phone and as they did not get any response both of them and when there was no response they opened the door by using their own key and saw the person laying on the bed covered with a rug and when they removed the rug they saw a naked dead body of a female and her neck was tied with plastic rope.

I have also perused the statements of other witnesses of P.W. 8, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 and also the Medical Officer, who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased. So all these materials collected during the investigation clearly goes to show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Looking to the materials on record there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused committed offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life. Even earlier also this petitioner approached this Court seeking his release on bail and this Court by order dated 10.04.2013 passed in Crl.P. No. 760/2013 dismissed the bail application. In paragraph 2 of the said order it has been observed by this Court as under:

Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. A perusal of the charge sheet specifies that the petitioner secured the victim and stayed with her in a lodge and raped her; strangulated her with plastic wire. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of bail.

Therefore, looking to all these materials on record I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, petition is rejected.