Manjunath vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The Shahapur police appears to have filed a charge sheet against the accused persons in connection with Crime No. 221/2014 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code.

The entire case revolves around the circumstance of last seen together and the statement of a person by name Basavaraj S/o. Siddramappa who was a driver. It is the case of the prosecution that a person by name Bhimaraya S/o. Mudukappa of Harnoor village, has been behaving like a mad person, ill-treating and harassing his family members since 4-5 months prior to the incident.

The petitioners are the close relatives of the deceased and in fact having frustrated in the life with regard to mad behavior of the deceased. The petitioners have decided to leave him in Haiyaleshwara Temple. In this back ground it is alleged that about 1 1/2 months prior to the complaint i.e. the complaint was lodged on 01-09-2014 by one Bheemangouda S/o. Sidramappagouda, it is alleged that these four persons alongwith a Taxi driver by name Basavaraj took the deceased in the vehicle of Basavaraj in order to leave that man at Haiyaleshwara Temple. At about 9.30 p.m., when the vehicle reached Hattigudi village there was heavy rains. At that time all the four petitioners took out the said deceased Bheemaraya from the Jeep and threw him in a canal wherein the water was flowing and threatened the driver Basavaraj with dire consequences not to disclose the same to anybody.

In fact the dead body was seen by the complainant Bheemangouda on 31-08-2014 when he had been to his land and saw the dead body in the water canal. He informed the police and the police have kept the said dead body in the police station and in fact at the initial stages, a person by name Sharanappa S/o. Sidramappa has come to the mortuary of the hospital and after seeing the dead body on 02-09-2014 he identified said body as that of his father. But subsequently he again came back and disclosed that the said dead body was not of his father. In fact the dead body was cremated.

Afterwards on 10-10-2014 the police on suspicion interrogated Basavaraj S/o. Sidramappa Kobal (driver of the vehicle) and in fact he disclosed that, on that particular day the accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased. In fact he gave such statement before the Jurisdictional Magistrate U/Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. The police during the course of investigation also recorded the statement of kith and kin of the deceased. But they have also never stated anything about the cause of death of deceased and last seen together. But they have only stated that they came to know about the incident through Basavaraj subsequently. There is long delay of 1 1/2 months in disclosing the above incident by the said Basavaraj.

Merely because the accused persons alleged to have been threatened the said Basavaraj it cannot be presumed that he could keep quite for 1 1/2 months without disclosing the incident. Except the last seen theory, there is no other material available at this stage. It may through strong suspicion on the conduct of the petitioners at this stage in my opinion only suspicion against the petitioners cannot take the proof. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to firmly establish the case against the accused. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners who have been in judicial custody since the date of their arrest are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Hence the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

Consequently the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 221/2014 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code on following conditions.

"i) The petitioners shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

ii) The petitioners shall assist the police in completing the investigation.

iii) The petitioners shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer as and when required, if necessary for further investigation.

iv) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

v) The petitioners shall appear before the Committal Court on all future dates of hearing and also later before the Trial Court unless prevented by any genuine cause.

vi) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Yadgir District without prior permission of the committal Court or trial Court till the case registered against them is disposed off."