Santosh and Others vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The University police have laid a charge sheet in C.C. No. 58/2015 against some of the accused persons.

The petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 200275/2015 are arrayed as accused Nos. 4 and 5 respectively and petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 200276/2015 Siddu is arrayed as accused No. 6.

The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that, a person by name Bhimasha S/o Katalappa of Mangalagi village lodged first information stating that there was some differences between some accused persons, particularly accused No. 5 Saibanna with the deceased Suresh in respect of the fact that the said Saibanna was suspecting that deceased Suresh was the main person who had indulged in abducting the daughter of Saibanna. In this regard, Saibanna had a grinding axe against the said Suresh. It is alleged that on, 29-09-2014 in the morning the said Suresh telephoned to the complainant, who is no other than his brother, that he was with one Mareppa of Kaddoor village and he told that he would come back to the village in the evening, again the complainant called the deceased over phone at 3.00 p.m., and again at 6.00 or 7.00 p.m., then also he received the phone call that the deceased was with Mareppa, but thereafter he did not return and his mobile was also found switch off. On 30-09-2014, he received an information from the police that a dead body was lying on Gulbarga - Sedam road near Srinivasa Saradagi cross, immediately he went there and saw the dead body of his brother and thereafter lodged a complaint, suspecting the hands of Saibanna and others in the death of his brothers. He also mentioned the name of accused No. 4 at the initial stages itself. Subsequently the police have started investigation and recorded the statement of some of the witnesses.

On 06-10-2014 they recorded the statement of an eyewitness Mareppa, he has categorically stated that on the date of incident on 29-09-2014 when himself and deceased Suresh were proceeding on the motor cycle, at that time accused persons came there in two motor cycles and in fact all the accused persons have intercepted the way of the eyewitness and the deceased Suresh and particularly it is alleged that accused No. 4 Santosh and accused No. 6 Siddu have assaulted the deceased with stones on his head and face and one Basavaraj has cut the throat of deceased Suresh due to which deceased died on the spot itself in fact the accused persons did not stop there, particularly the accused No. 4 Santosh took this witness alongwith him and all of them went towards Humnabad - Ring road and there they left this witness by giving threat, that if he disclose the incident to anybody he would also be killed. On this ground, he could not be able to divulge the above said fact to anybody, but it appears after coming to know that this witness was eyewitness to the incident, the police must have subsequently recorded the statement of the said witness. He has also stated that Saibanna must have provoked the other accused to do away with the life of the deceased.

Looking to the said factual matrix and the statement of the eyewitness, though there is some delay in recording statement of this witness. There is an explanation by the eyewitness that, he was threatened by the accused persons with dire consequences of killing him. Therefore the reasons for delay in recording the statement, in my opinion has to be thrashed out during the course of full dressed trial, whether that itself is sufficient to disbelieve statement of this witness. However looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, accused Nos. 4 and 6 are the persons directly involved in commission of the offence, there is direct allegation that these two persons have intercepted the way and in fact this accused No. 6 dragged the deceased from the motor cycle and then accused Nos. 4 and 6 have assaulted the deceased with stones on his head and face. Post mortem examination report also discloses injuries sustained by the deceased on his head and face. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no specific overt act alleged against accused No. 5 i.e. petitioner No. 2 in Criminal Petition No. 200275/2015. Therefore the contact between other accused persons with accused No. 5 has to be established during the course of full dressed trial.

Under the above said circumstances I don''t find any strong reason to release the accused Nos. 4 and 6. However the petitioner No. 2 (accused No. 5) in Criminal Petition No. 200275/2015 deserves to be partly allowed and Criminal Petition No. 200276/2015 is liable to be dismissed.

With these observations both the petitions are disposed off.

Hence the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed in part, so far it relates to petitioner No. 2 (accused No. 5) in Criminal Petition No. 200275/2015.

The petition so far it relates to petitioner (accused No. 6) in Criminal Petition No. 200276/2015 is dismissed.

Consequently the petitioner No. 2 (accused No. 5) Saibanna in Criminal Petition No. 200275/201 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 238/2014 of University police station, Kalaburgi for the offences punishable U/Sec. 143, 147, 148, 302, 201, 341,120(B) 109 and 506 R/w Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code on following conditions.

"i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court or trial Court as the case may be.

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The petitioner shall regularly appear before the Committal Court or Trial Court on all future dates of hearing unless prevented by any genuine cause, as the case may be.

iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Kalaburgi District without prior permission till the case registered against him is disposed off."