Mudakappa alias Iranna and another vs State of Karnataka

Aravind Kumar, J.—Heard Sri. Shivakumar Tengli, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners and Sri. Sheshadri Jaishankar M., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records.

Petitioners have been arraigned as accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 98/2015 (C.C. No. 572/2015) registered by Managuli Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

A complaint came to be lodged by one Valu S/o Ramachandra Rathod on 06.06.2015 before Managuli Police alleging that he is a resident of Mulavada Tanda and he came to know about a dead body lying on National Highway No. 218 and as such, persons from his Tanda by name Sri. Prakash and Sri. Yeshwanth went to the spot and saw a dead body was lying on the road and there were marks of scuffle on the floor in the vicinity of dead body and blood stains was also present at the spot. It was also stated that face, stomach, legs and hands of the body were completely crushed and stated that incident might have occurred on the previous day between 10.00 p.m., and 6.00 a.m. On registering the said complaint in Crime No. 98/2015, investigation was taken up by the jurisdictional Police. Subsequently, wife of the deceased has identified the dead body and her statement is also recorded.

It is the contention of Sri. Shivakumar Tengli, learned Advocate that petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged. There are no eye-witnesses and there are no direct or indirect witnesses to the incident to connect the petitioners and entire case of prosecution is based on figment of imagination. He also contends that charge-sheet has been filed and presence of petitioners for custodial interrogation is not required and there is every possibility of deceased might have died due to traffic accident, since bus ticket was found in the pocket of the deceased and his dead body was found on N.H.218. Hence, he seeks for petitioners being enlarged on bail. He would elaborate his submission by contending that it might be a hit and run case since body was found in the national highway and statement of witnesses have been recorded on 08.06.2015 i.e., after two days of the incident and they having not stated about the complicity of petitioners and as such, he prays for petitioners being enlarged on bail.

Per contra, Sri. Sheshadri Jaishankar M., learned High Court Government Pleader would oppose grant of prayer contending that witnesses statement recorded during the course of investigation would indicate participation of petitioners in the alleged offences and as such, he prays for rejection of the petition.

Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and after bestowing my careful and anxious consideration to the contentions raised at the bar as well as perusal of charge-sheet and its contents thereof, it would indicate that prosecution is resting its case mainly on the statement of wife of deceased as well as statement of CWs. 19 and 20. A perusal of the statement of made by wife of deceased recorded on 06.06.2015 and 08.06.2015 would indicate that there was some dispute between the deceased and one Shabbir s/c Bashasab Tigni Bidri relating to an amount of Rs. 10,000/- said to have been borrowed by deceased from Shabbir. She also states that deceased had warned Shabbir not to visit his house on this pretext. If it were to be so, as to why the deceased went along with accused/petitioners herein along with Shabbir is a factor which has to be thrashed out during the course of trial. Undisputedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. Body of the deceased was recovered on National Highway No. 218 in a mutilated condition. Even the inquest mahazar would indicate that there was a bus ticket found in the pocket of pant worn by the deceased. That apart, statement of CWs.19 and 20 which has been very heavily relied upon by the prosecution would clearly indicate that they have stated that petitioners herein might have taken the deceased as told to them by the wife of deceased. In other words, it is an hearsay evidence. At this juncture, it cannot be held that there is no prima facie material produced by the petitioners for denying the prayer sought for by them. As such, this Court is of considered view that petitioners are entitled for being enlarged on bail. Hence, without ex-pressing any opinion in that regard, this Court is of considered view that petitioners are entitled for grant of bail particularly, when charge sheet has been filed and investigation has been concluded.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(a) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.

(b) Petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 98/2015 (C.C.No.572/2015) pending on the file of JMFC Court, Basavana Bagewadi, on petitioners executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with one independent solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court and subject to following conditions:

i. Petitioners shall not terrorise or induce the prosecution witnesses in any manner what-soever;

ii. Petitioners without seeking exemption shall appear before the jurisdictional Court/committal Court on all dates of hearing except under exceptional circumstances;

iii Petitioners shall mark their attendance before Managuli Police Station once in fifteen days i.e., 2nd and 4th Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., till the conclusion of trial;

iv. Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without express permission till the disposal of the case on merits:

v. Prosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail in the event of any of the conditions being violated;