1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 21 th DAY OF MARCH 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100420/2017 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100456/2017

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100420/2017

BETWEEN

1. Shri.Beerappa S/o. Satyappa Kollannavar Age : 41 Years, Occ : Agriculture R/o : Hanagandi, Tq: Jamkhandi, Dist : .

2. Shri.Parappa S/o. Basappa Janganur @ Prakash, Age : 33 Years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o : Chimmad, Farm House Chimmad Village, Tq: Jamkhandi, Dist : Bagalkot. - Petitioners (By Sri. Shrikant T. Patil, Advocate)

AND

The State of Karnataka R/by Teradal Police Station, R/by S.P.P., High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, At : Dharwad. - Respondent (By Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, HCGP) 2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW CRIMINAL PETITION AND ORDER FOR RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.11/2016 AT TERADAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 201 AND 302 OF IPC IN S.C.NO.51/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, SITING AT .

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100456/2017

BETWEEN

Parappa Basappa Janganur @ Prakash S/o. Basappa, Age : 34 Years, Occ : Farmer, R/o : Chimmad Farm House, Chimmad Village, Tq: Jamkhandi, Dist : Bagalkot. - Petitioner (By Sri. S.C. Bhuti, Advocate)

AND

State of Karnataka Represented by PSI, Police Station, Tal : Jamkhandi, By its Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Dharwad. - Respondent (By Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW CRIMINAL PETITION AND ORDER FOR RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.11/2016 AT TERADAL POLICE STATION FOR 3

THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 341, 342, 364, 365, 34, 302 OF IPC IN S.C.NO.51/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, SITING AT JAMAKHANDI.

THESE CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State in both the petitions and perused the records.

2. The petitioner in Criminal Petition

No.100420/2017 is arrayed as accused No.2, whereas the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 100456/2017 is arrayed as accused No.3 in connection with Crime No.11/2016, subsequently registered as Session Case No.51/2016 of

Teradal Police Station, Banahatti Circle, , after the charge sheet is filed, which is pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamakhandi. 4

3. The respondent Police have laid a charge sheet against the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 4 along with other accused persons. The allegations made against the accused persons are that, the deceased

Venkappagouda, resident of Kamakeri Village in Ramdurg

Taluk was doing the business of Insurance and used to visit the house of the accused No.1. In this context, the accused No.1 and the deceased developed illicit intimacy with each other. It is further alleged that, the accused

No.1 has helped the deceased by giving him Rs.20,000/- and one Tola of gold. But, the deceased did not return the same in spite of her repeated requests and demands. In this context, there was some differences between the accused and deceased. It is also alleged that, whenever the accused No.1 demanded for money and gold, the deceased was threatening her that he would disclose their illicit relationships amongst the family members of the accused No.1 and also the other persons in the Village. In this context, being scared of the conduct of the deceased, the accused No.1 disclosed the same to her husband and with the help of other accused persons, they have planned 5

to eliminate the deceased. In accordance with their plan, on 05.02.2016, the accused No.1 has requested the deceased to go over to Jamakhandi and accordingly, he went to Jamakhandi reached Desai Circle at 6.30, the accused No.1 took the deceased to a juice shop and consumed juice there. Thereafter, the accused No.3 and 4 also came there in a car and all the accused persons have assaulted the deceased and took him in the car and taken him to the house of accused No.1 and 2. In the house of accused No.1 and 2 they assaulted the deceased with ropes and thereafter, strangulated his neck and committed his murder.

4. The Police during the course of investigation, arrested the accused persons on 11.03.2016 on suspicion and recorded their voluntary statements. Thereafter, recorded the statement of CW-22 to 25 and also the owner of the said Juice shop, who have stated that on the day of incident the accused and deceased were together and accused Nos.1, 3, and 4 have assaulting the deceased near the said juice shop and thereafter they took the deceased 6

along with them. The Police have also collected phone calls pertaining to the accused and the deceased. The P.M. examination report, also shows that death was due to strangulation. The car was also seized and rope which was allegedly used for the purpose of strangulating the deceased was also seized from accused No.1.

5. The above said circumstances show that only after arrest of the accused and recording of the voluntary statements of the accused, the Police have investigated the matter. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel, from 06.02.2016 when the dead body was lying on the road, no investigation appears to have been done. CW-22 to 25, who were known to the accused, their statements were recorded on 11.03.2016, after long lapse of one month.

6. The last seen together, even if it is taken as established at this stage, but the gap in recording the statement of the witnesses and also the gap between the last seen and the death of the deceased has to be taken into consideration by the Court. When the case is 7

revolving around circumstantial evidence a strong unbeatable material should be there in order to reject the bail petition. Except the statements of CW-22 to 25, whose statements were recorded after one month, there is no other strong material to connect the accused at this stage. The motive factor has to be established beyond reasonable doubts during full dressed trial. The trial may also take considerable time.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court that accused No.1 and 4 have already approached this Court in Criminal Petition

No.100213/2017. This Court has granted bail to accused

Nos.1 and 4 on conditions.

8. As could be seen from the above factual aspects, in my opinion, the accused Nos.2 and 3 also stand on the same footing as that of accused Nos.1 and 4, and no specific allegations are forthcoming sofar as these petitioners are concerned, the petitioners are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. 8

9. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the long incarceration of the accused from

11.03.2016, I am of the opinion, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions. Hence, the following order is passed.

ORDER

The petitions are allowed. Petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with S.C.No.51/2016 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamakhandi for the offences punishable under

Sections 120B, 341, 342, 364, 365, 302 read with Section

34 of IPC with following conditions.

1. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each, with two solvent sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.

2. The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

3. The petitioners shall attend the Court regularly on all the hearing dates, unless exempt by the Court for valid reasons. 9

4. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till the case registered against him is disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

MNS/CKK