R. Vijayan vs State of Karnataka

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in respect of a case registered against the petitioner in Cr. No. 80/2014 by Byappanahalli Police Station. Offences are punishable under Sections 302 of IPC.

Bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner has already been dismissed by the Court of the Presiding Officer, FTC, XI Bangalore on 14.1.2015 in S.C. 1072/2014.

After concluding investigation, charge sheet has been filed. The main allegation against this petitioner is that he had demanded Rs. 10,000/- from Smt. Rajanirajabala, wife of the first informant Sri. Amritha Packia Das and she was murdered by this petitioner between 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. on 10.3.2014 in her residential flat in Third Floor, DRDO Complex, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore. Further allegation is that he has taken away two gold chains worn by the deceased. The murder is stated to have been done for gain by this petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has requested the court to release the petitioner on bail on the ground that two gold chains stated to have been recovered at the instance of this petitioner do not tally with the details given by the first informant in his first information lodged at about 1.30 a.m. on 10.3.2014. Further, it is agued that it is not a case of murder but a case of suicide which is supported by two death notes left by the deceased. It is argued that deceased had sustained injuries on 10.3.2014 and had gone to the doctor for treatment and therefore possibility of this accused going to the house of the deceased for committing her murder for gain appears to be remote. It is argued that the entire investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and case is based on circumstances which need to be established at the time of the trial. Hence, he has requested for grant of bail.

Learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is too premature to disbelieve the materials collected by the police. It is argued that accused himself had persuaded the deceased to write two death notes so that he could use the same for the purpose of cinema production and get some amount. It is argued that after persuading her to write such note, he committed her murder by stabbing on her neck. It is argued that accused was arrested few hours after murder. Incriminating materials have been collected in the presence of Panchas on 10.3.2014 and they are strong circumstances. Circumstances relied upon by the police are strong circumstances indicating the involvement of this petitioner in murdering the deceased. Hence, he has requested the court to reject the bail.

After perusing the records, it is seen that police have recorded the statement of lady Selva Kumari on 10.3.2014 itself. She is residing in House No. 12 DRDO Complex and she knew the family of the deceased very well. The statement of Selva Kumari a neighbourer of the deceased discloses that at about 11.00 a.m. somebody jumped from third floor of the DRDO quarters and she heard the sound and she could see that a man aged about 30 years well built had jumped from the third floor and had sat for two minutes holding a bag and then went away. Suspecting something, she went near the door of Rajanirajabala and was surprised to see that door was opened and a pair of chappal was found at the door. Even after calling the name of Rajamrajabala for several times, there was no response. Hence, she and other neighbors went inside the house and were surprised to see that the dead body of Rajamrajabala was found in the bedroom. She could see that somebody had murdered her by stabbing on her neck and two gold chains which the deceased worn were not found. Suddenly, she informed the husband of the deceased and police and Police and Sri. Amrith Das came there and found an Activa Honda scooter bearing No. KA-53-A-2219 being parked near the building The said scooter was seized and after enquiry it was found that the scooter had been parked in a suspicious manner and there was no person to claim the scooter. It was suspected that somebody had come in the said scooter to murder Rajanirajabala for gain and went away. Infact the accused was shown to the witness Selvi Kumari at about 9.00 p.m. on 10.3.2014 and she identified him as the person who had jumped from the third floor and sat for two minutes and went away.

It is true that there is some discrepancy in regard to the weight of two gold chains worn by the deceased given in the first information lodged by first informant. In his further statement, he has stated that the weight of the gold chains as 64 gms and in fact both the chains weigh only 54 gms and he has identified these two chains as the two gold chains worn by his wife. Apart from this, police have chosen to recover the knife, blood stained T shirt, suicide note and half written suicide note in Tamil language at the instance of the accused in his house in presence of Panchas on 10.3.2014.

What is argued by the learned Government Pleader is that possibility of accused going to doctor for taking treatment and his sudden jump from the third floor soon after murdering cannot be ruled out. This cannot not be considered as circumstance to doubt the case of the prosecution. There appears to be strong force in the argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader.

Further statement of first informant discloses that accused was known to them and he had once asked his wife demanding Rs. 10,000/- and she had refused to pay him. This is corroborated by the statement of the daughter of the deceased recorded by the police. There is some material to show as to how the alleged death notes were found in the handwriting of the deceased. Two gold chains have also been recovered at the instance of the accused by the police on the same night.

As rightly pointed by the learned Government Pleader, the case does not appears to be the case of suicide and this appears to be case of homicide. Taking into consideration the circumstances under which the alleged murder is stated to have been taken place and the gravity of the offence and punishment contemplated thereof, this is not a case in which discretion could be exercised under section 439 of Cr.P.C. at this stage. Considering the totality of the case put forth by the police, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

ORDER

Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in respect of a case registered against the petitioner in Cr. No. 80/2014 by Byappanahalli Police Station is dismissed.