Rathan Mandela vs State of Karnataka

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner, who is accused No. 1 in SC No. 821/2013 on the file of the Fast Track-II Judge, Bangalore City registered for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC is before this court praying for grant of regular bail. It is the case of the prosecution that this petitioner had developed illicit connection with CW 4, who was working in an apartment, which was under construction situated in Sy. No. 37/1 of Naganathapura. The deceased was also working in the same construction apartment along with accused No. 1. He had also developed illicit intimacy with CW 4. It is alleged that the deceased directed accused No. 1 to send CW 4 to have sexual intercourse. Therefore, accused No. 1 along with accused No. 2-Juvenile offender, secured the deceased Sarveshwar Ravuth to the said apartment on 01.01.2013 at about mid-night and at the said place in the third floor of the said apartment, which was under construction, committed murder of the deceased by cutting his neck with knife. He did commit murder of the deceased so that he would not come in the way of his illicit relationship with CW 4.

The learned counsel for petitioner submits that case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The only circumstances that has been relied upon by the prosecution is recovery of the knife and mobile of the deceased. The recovery has been made after the arrest of the accused - petitioner on 07.01.2013. He submits that there is nothing placed on record to show that there were any phone calls made on the cell phone belonging to the deceased. Therefore, he submits that as petitioner is in custody since 07.01.2013 he be released on bail.

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader while drawing my attention to the charge sheet papers submits that investigating agency during the course of investigation have collected the call details of the cell phone seized belonging to the deceased at the instance of accused No. 1. He also submits that apart from this they have also collected call details of the cell phone of the accused. On the basis of that he submits the call details made with each other would indicate that this petitioner is the culprit in committing the murder of the deceased. He further submits that statements of the eye witnesses would also go to show that there were differences between the petitioner and the deceased on account of they having illicit relationship with CW 4. As the material now placed on record discloses a prima facie case for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC against this petitioner, he is not entitled to be released on bail. A perusal of the material on record shows more particularly call details of the cell phone belonging to the deceased which was seized at the instance of this accused reflects that they were in contact on that particular day, i.e., on 01.01.2013. Further, the knife with which the petitioner committed murder of the deceased is seized at his instance. The material on record also goes to show a prima facie case against the petitioner has been made out for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. Therefore, under these circumstances, I do not find that this is a fit case to exercise discretion vested in this court u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition and it is dismissed.