: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11257/2012

BETWEEN:

Suresh S/o. Dhareppa Mutnal, Age: 35 years, Occ.: Advocate, R/o. , Tq. , District: . ...Petitioner

[By Shri M.B.Gundawade, Advocate for Shri K. Anand Kumar, Advocate]

AND:

State of Karnataka, Through Mudalagi Police Station, By S.P.P., High Court Building, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. …Respondent

[By Shri Vinayak S. Kulkarni, Government Pleader]

This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to allow this criminal petition and order for release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.74/2011 registered by the Mudalagi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 364, 342, 120(B), 302, 201 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice and equity. : 2 :

This criminal petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following: -

ORDER

The petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.4 in Sessions Case No.88/2012 on the file of III Additional

Sessions Judge at Belgaum. He and six other accused persons have been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 364,

342, 120(B), 302, 201 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. According to the case of the prosecution, one

Aravind Bykud youngest son of Laxman Mallappa

Bykud eloped with Sunitha daughter of accused No.1 –

Lakkappa Laxman on 20.10.2010 and their whereabouts were not known. On account of this incident, accused Nos.1 to 5 who were close relatives inter se fell insulted and humiliated in the village. In addition to this, Raghavendra, the elder son of C.W.1 started teasing accused Nos.1 to 3 in the village stating that though his brother had eloped with the daughter of : 3 : mighty person in the village, they could not do anything.

This added to the feelings of accused Nos.1 to 3 and they felt highly insulted and humiliated in the village.

Accused Nos.1 to 3 shared this feeling with accused

Nos.4 and 5, who are their relatives and wanted something to be done to prevent the Said Raghavendra from doing so. In this regard, on 08.12.2010 at about

05:00 p.m., a meeting was held in the farm house of accused No.4 situated in Survey No.50/1,2,3, of Itnal

Village attended by accused Nos.1 to 7 in which they hatched a conspiracy to kidnap the said Raghavendra and then to murder him. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, at about 02:00 p.m. on 11.12.2010, when the said Raghavendra was proceeding on his motor cycle from Mudalagi to , on the way the accused Nos.1 to 7 waylaid the said Raghavendra, forcibly pushed him into the Zylo car owned by this petitioner bearing registration No.KA.23.M.8372. This act of abduction was witnessed by C.W.14 – Vitthal

Billeppa Laxmi Pujeri and C.W.15 – Babu Mahadev : 4 :

Desai and from there the said Raghavendra was taken to the farm house of accused Nos.4 and 5, illegally confined him inside the farmhouse, assaulted him with clubs and killed him. Later, at about 10:00 p.m., all of them carried the dead body of the said Raghvendra in a gunny bag from the farmhouse in the Zylo car of this petitioner. This incident was witnessed by C.W.23 –

Baramappa Vitthal Pattanakodi. Thereafter, the dead body was stated to have been thrown into the canal. In the meanwhile, on 03.06.2011 C.W.1 lodged a complaint about missing of his son Raghavendra from the house on 11.12.2010. On the basis of the said report, Mudalagi Police registered the case in Crime

No.74/2011 for missing of the person. Thereafter, on

06.06.2011, C.W.1 came to know about the kidnap of his son Raghavendra on 11.12.2010 by this petitioner and others, and on the same day at about 09:10 p.m., he lodged further report in this regard. On the basis of such further report, Police added offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 363 read with Section 149 of : 5 : the Indian Penal Code, into the case already registered in Crime No.74/2011. During investigation, the statement of C.Ws.14, 15 and 23 were recorded which disclosed the complicity of this petitioner and other accused persons. During investigation, the statement of

C.W.24 – Ravi Kumar Bheemappa Baloji was also recorded and the said statement disclosed that this petitioner had made extra judicial confession before

C.W.24 on 30.07.2011. Therefore, this petitioner was arraigned as accused person in the case registered in

Crime No.74/2011. The attempts made by the Police to apprehend this petitioner did not lead any result.

Therefore, charge sheet came to be filed by showing this petitioner as absconding. Thereafter, subsequently on

13.02.2012, this petitioner was arrested by Raibag

Police in connection with case in Crime No.145/2011 registered for the various offences including the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Thereafter, the presence of the petitioner was secured through body warrant. The application filed for bail by : 6 : the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge came to be rejected. Therefore, he is before this Court.

3. The petition is opposed by the respondent -

State. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged statement of witnesses have been recorded about 6 to 7 months after the alleged incident, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statements of those witnesses. He contended that there has been inordinate delay in lodging the report, even regarding the missing of the person. He contended that the corpus delicti has not been traced and therefore, it is not definite as to whether said Raghevendra has really died or is still alive, therefore, the case of the prosecution, is highly suspicious and the circumstances relied on by the prosecution are all created and fabricated only to involve this petitioner in a serous : 7 : offence case. Therefore, he sought for allowing the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned Government

Advocate referring to the statements of the witnesses contended that the reason for not disclosing the incident earlier, by these witnesses are self-explanatory, and that having regard to the conduct of this petitioner and the various circumstances relied upon by the prosecution would prima facie indicate the complicity of this petitioner in the abduction and murder of

Raghavendra. He further contended that this petitioner is involved in several cases of heinous offences like murder etc. and therefore, release of this petitioner on bail is not in public interest. He also contended that the petitioner has been accused of threatening the witnesses from deposing before the Court and attacking the witnesses while they were proceeding to the Court for giving evidence and in that regard, case has been registered against him. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for relief of bail. : 8 :

6. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having perused the records made available, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for relief of bail. No doubt, there has been delay in lodging the report about missing of the person.

C.W.1 being the father of said Raghavendra lodged a report on 03.06.2011 about missing of his son from

11.12.2010. The reason as to why he did not immediately report about the missing of his son will have to be explained by him during the trial of the case.

Merely on the basis of the delay in lodging the report, the case of the prosecution cannot be viewed with suspicion. Of course, the statements of the witnesses referred to supra, are stated to have been recorded about 6 to 7 months after the alleged incident.

However, the statement prima facie indicates that on account of threatening and fear, they did not disclose the same to anyone. The statement of C.W.23 prima facie indicates that there was a meeting of accused

Nos.1 to 7 in the farmhouse of accused No.4 wherein : 9 : they hatched a conspiracy to abduct and murder said

Raghavendra. The statement of C.Ws.14 and 15 prima facie indicates that on 11.12.2010 the said

Raghavendra was abducted by accused Nos.1 to 7 while he was proceeding on a motorcycle from Mudalagi towards Kankanwadi and later he was taken to farmhouse of accused Nos.4 where he was severely assaulted and murdered. Of course, the corpus delicti has not been traced. However, the materials on record, at this stage, prima facie indicates that the dead body kept in a gunny bag was thrown into the main canal, therefore, the same could not be traced. The materials on record also prima facie indicates that this petitioner is involved in not less than three more cases, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 and other offences. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in one of the cases registered against this petitioner, he is alleged to have waylaid the material witnesses in a murder case while they were proceeding to the Court house for giving evidence and there was an : 10 : attempt to commit murder of the witnesses. Thus, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not a law abiding citizen and he is ready to take law into his hands. He is also likely to tamper the prosecution witnesses and threaten them from giving evidence before the Court of law.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, I am of the considered opinion that the release of this petitioner is not in public interest. Therefore, the petition is rejected.

Sd/- JUDGE

Rsh