RAMESH @ PAPU & ANR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking the relief of bail in Crime No.266/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections

449, 302, 324, 341, 109, 504 R/W 34 of IPC.

The complaint is lodged on 29.08.2016 by one Smt. Shakuntala. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is the permanent Kalaghatagi

along with family members. In the recent Taluka Panchayat Elections, one Nagaraj was elected from Gandhi Nagar ward and on the date of the

incident he was working as Vice President of Taluka Panchayat Kalaghatagi. In respect of the property belonging to Gouli and in respect of

another property belonging to Society situated near the petrol bunk, accused Nos.1 to 4 were insisting the brother of the complainant Nagaraj to

get their names entered to the said property, as the brother of the complainant was the Vice-President of Taluka Panchayat and as the said

properties were the public properties, Nagaraj advised the accused to get their entered through the process of law. In that background, accused

were nurturing ill-will against Nagaraj and were threatening him with dire consequences. On 29.08.2016, the complainant along with Nagaraj and

her friend viz., Manjula had been to a function in Basaveshwar Temple and were returning in the car after the lunch. On the way to the house, the

complainant and Nagaraj intended to visit the house of daughter of Ex. Vice-President of Taluka President viz., Bharati and by parking the car by

the side of the road, they went to the house of Bharati. At that time, accused persons came there with deadly arms in their hands and trespassed

into the house of Bharati, with an intention to commit the murder of Nagaraj, accused No.1 Ramesh assaulted Nagaraj on the head with a

chopper. At that time, Manjunath assaulted Nagaraj with chopper saying that accused No.3 had directed him to finish off. When the friend of the

complainant Bharati tried to rescue Nagaraj, accused Manjunath also assaulted her with chopper on her legs and at that time the remaining

accused held the complainant tightly so as to prevent her from rescuing her brother Nagaraj. When they raised hue and cry, the accused ran away

from the spot. On account of the assault Nagaraj died on the spot. However, Bharati was shifted to hospital for treatment. Thereafter the

complaint came to be registered against the accused persons.

Sri Ravi B.Naik, learned Sr. Counsel would submit that the earlier criminal petition No.3906/2017 passed by the Court dated 12.06.2017,

wherein the accused No.2 and who now accused No.3. However, accused No.3 Manjunath and petitioner No.2 in this petition was granted bail

by this Court for a period of four months and after completion of the period, he made the application before this Court for extension of time and

that came to be allowed by extending 30 days and after completion of bail which is extended for 30 days, he surrendered to the custody on

15.11.2017. He further submits that Ramesh who is accused No.1 in the FIR and accused No.2 after filing the final report and petitioner No.1 in

this petition was filed bail application and the same was withdrawn as not pressed. Thus, the present application is in respect of accused Nos.2 and

However, the accused Nos.1 and 4 have already been granted bail by this Court and hence, the petitioners are also entitled for bail on the

principle of parity. He further submits that petitioner No.2 is having health issues and suffering from deceases like Kidney ailment and requires

constant treatment.

Learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition for grant of bail to the petitioners on the ground that antecedent and conduct of

the petitioners are not worth for the sake of property and accused have committed a serious offence of murder.

The accused persons by name Majarullakhan, Ramesh @ Papu, Manjunath. In so far as accused persons concerned in Sl. No.1 it is shown as

two unknown persons, Sl. No.2-Ramesh, Sl.No.3-Manjunath and Sl.No.4.Majar.

In the context and circumstances of the case, it could be seen that investigation is completed, final report is submitted and there are no

allegations of interference against the petitioners. Further, the petitioner No.2 i.e. accused No.3 has been granted bail by this Court for a period of

four months and later it was extended for one month. Meanwhile, no allegations of interference of investigation or threatening the witnesses and so

also the petitioner No.1 is in judicial custody since from 02.09.2016.

In the context and circumstances of the case, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution in case the bail petition is allowed. However, the

apprehension of the prosecution would be resolved by imposing conditions. Hence, the following:

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond in a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- each with a surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Prl. Sessions Court, Dharwad, in S.C.No.70/2017, subject to the

following conditions;

i) The petitioners shall not terrorize the witnesses nor tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner.

ii) The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Prl. Sessions Court, Dharwad on first Saturday of every month between

9.00 and 10.00 a.m. till the examination of the complainant.

iii) The petitioners shall not leave the State of Karnataka without prior permission of the trial Court until the examination of witnesses

including the complainant is over.