Mallikarjun, Sanjukumar, Swaroop vs State of Karnataka <BR> Srimanth Vs The State

Rathnakala, J.—Criminal Petition No. 200197/2014 is filed by accused No. 3 whereas, Criminal Petition No. 200198/2014 is filed by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4, seeking bail in Crime No. 162/2013 of Hulsoor Police Station, Bidar, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 506, 307, 302, 109, 120B r/w Section 149 of IPC. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet is filed. Accused Nos. 7 and 8 are shown as absconding accused in the charge sheet.

The allegation in the charge sheet is that, the deceased Vaijinath Patil was a generous person. He had constructed a Saibaba temple in his village. The magnanimity and generosity of the deceased irritated the accused persons, who were the disciples of Bhagwat Maharaj. All the eight accused persons conspired to do away with the life of the deceased while he is sleeping in the Saibaba temple. They further planned to steal the ''hundi'' of the temple, so that it appears as an incident of ''dacoity''. CW-23/the servant of accused No. 1, since overheard the conspiracy, they warned him with dire consequence, if he ever disclosed the matter to anyone. On 14.8.2013, the accused persons formed unlawful assembly, they carried deadly weapons with them and entered the Saibaba temple, assaulted the deceased, who was sleeping. On hearing the screaming of the deceased, the Archak of the temple came out of his house, the accused put threat and sent him back. They assaulted the deceased with their weapons all over his body, stabbed him and amputated his earlobe. CW-25, who was also sleeping in the same temple, since interfered and questioned the accused, accused Nos. 1 to 4 assaulted him with their weapons. Consequently, CW-25 suffered head injury and became unconscious. By presuming that CW-25 expired, the accused snatched his mobile and left the place with the ''hundi'' of the temple. They disposed the ''hundi'' and mobile in a nearly sugarcane plantation.

All the petitioners had previously approached this Court in Criminal Petition Nos. 16048/2013 & 16020/2013 at crime stage. Both petitions were dismissed, reserving liberty to them to approach the Court after the charge sheet is filed. Considering that one of the petitioners i.e., Sreemanth is aged 72 years, the Sessions Court was directed to consider his age with reference to the overt acts alleged against him at the time of considering his bail application after the charge sheet is filed. Accordingly, petitioners moved bail petition after filing of the charge sheet and the same came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that, the case of the prosecution is infirm and fraught with inconsistencies and artificiality.

Per contra, learned Addl. S.P.P. submits that there are two independent eye-witnesses to the incident. One is CW-23/Beerappa and another is CW-25/Nandakumar, injured of the very same incident. CW-23 is employed under Pailwan Malka/A-1. His 164 Cr.P.C. statement is recorded by the jurisdictional Magistrate. He is a witness both to the conspiracy and also the incident of 14.8.2013. The weapons used for the offence are recovered at the instance of the accused persons. The accused persons after committing the offence, to mislead the investigation have stolen the ''hundi'' from the temple. Being jealous of the popularity of the deceased, the accused persons have murdered the deceased and they are not entitled for bail.

I have gone through the charge sheet papers carefully. Though at this stage a prima facie case is made out on record against the petitioners, I advert to the fact that the investigation is completed, the petitioners are not alleged to any criminal background, they are the family persons having deeproots in the society. Under the circumstance, there is no impediment to enlarge the petitioners on bail subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. The petitioners are enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions:

1) The petitioners shall execute self Bond for Rs. 2,00,000/-, each. along with two separate sureties for the likesum; out of two sureties, one must be a solvent surety and produce a solvency certificate to the court;

2) They shall attend the court regularly and punctually; and

3) They shall not threaten or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses.