Shri. Basappa Balappa Jogali, vs The State of Karnataka

This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for his release on regular bail in Crime No.129/2017 of Mudhol Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120-B, 302, 201 r/w 149 of IPC . Since from the date of his arrest, the accused is in judicial custody.

Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is praying for enlargement of the petitioner on regular bail among the grounds urged therein.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under;

On the filing of the complaint by the complainant before the respondent police the crime came to be registered alleging the murder of Sanju Gurapp Kolhar. It is averred in the complaint that on 07.04.2017 at about 9.00 p.m., the complainant's son had gone to Malapur village on the motorcycle of Basappa stating that he is going for religious function of his friend. Since his son did not return late night and his mobile was switched off. On the next day i.e. on 08.04.2017 at about 7.00 a.m., when the complainant was proceeding to distribute milk at Shirol Cross, that he noticed several persons were assembled near the land of one Shashikant Lad stating that there was a dead body lying.

Thereafter, he saw the dead body, he identified the said dead body as that of his son Sanju with injuries over his head, ears, eyebrow and other parts of his body and blood was spread all over face and the motorcycle was lying near the dead body. Feeling that someone who was inimical towards his son has committed his murder. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint to the respondent police wherein the crime came to be registered and the Investigating Officer has taken up the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent - State.

Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has been contended that the accused is innocent person and he has not at all committed the alleged offences and he has been arrayed in the alleged crime that he was also participated with other accused to commit the murder of deceased Sanju but there is no direct overt act attributed against him and the same has been noted in the material which were secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation relating to the case in Crime No.129/2017. It is further contended that after completion of investigation done by the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against this accused. Whereas the co-accused Nos.3, 4, 5, and 6 have already been released on bail and hence those accused and this accused are in the similar footings for the alleged offences on parity also seeking to consider the bail petition. Moreover, the accused is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court, while granting bail to him. As the deceased was demanded to repay the amount in a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to his father therefore the accused alleged to be hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased and with the help of other accused, but this theory ahs been set up in a complaint by the complainant before the respondent police, wherein it is based upon the complaint the crime came to be registered and thereafter Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against the accused. However, the accused do not require to the Investigating Agency in further. It is further contended that, since from the date of arrest the accused in judicial custody. If the accused is kept behind the bar for a longer period, the family member would be ruined in the society.

Therefore, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail

Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent- State during the course of arguments contended that, the charge sheet has been laid against the accused in Crime No.129/2017, as the accused was hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased Sanju as he was demanded to repay the amount in a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to his father. It is further contended that this accused with the help of other accused has committed the murder of deceased Sanju by infliction of injuries over the person of deceased. The offence committed by the accused is heinous in nature and the same has been seen in the charge sheet which is laid against the accused, it is consisting of statement of witnesses as well as by conducting mahazar in the presence of pancha witness and so also the post mortem report reveals that the infliction of injuries over the person of deceased Sanju. Therefore, the accused do not deserve bail and if the accused is supposed to be released on bail certainly he would come in the way of prosecution and destroy the evidence. On all these grounds, the learned HCGP is seeking for rejection of the bail petition.

Having regard to the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned HCGP for the respondent-State are concerned, relating to the charge sheet laid against the accused in Crime No.129/2017 alleging that the accused were hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased Sanju. However, on careful perusal of the investigation papers it is seen that there was enmity between the accused No.1 and deceased, relating to the repayment of Rs.11,50,000/- which is borrowed by the first accused from his father. According, to the prosecution, in this background, the accused, with a view to eliminate the deceased committed the murder of deceased Sanju with the help of other accused by hatching a plan. It is relevant to state CW.17 and CW.19, who have given the statement before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation which reveals that the deceased Sanju was in the company of the accused much prior to his death. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.2 and 3 were apprehended and as per their voluntary statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, which is based upon the voluntary statement, this accused was also roped in the alleged crime that the accused was also participated to assault the deceased and eliminated him by infliction of injuries. Subsequent to the registration of the crime the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against the accused, it is consisting of statement of witnesses as well as mahazar which alleged to be conducted by the Investigating Officer in the presence of pancha witness.

However, the co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court in Crl.P No.101493/2017 & Crl.P.No.101205/2017 C/w 101245/2017 & 101246/2017 by imposing suitable conditions as specified therein relating to the accused Nos.3, 4, 5, and 6. Therefore, at this stage it is said that it does not require any detail discussion while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioner, as there are substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking for the relief of bail.

Whereas, the learned HCGP submits that, if the accused is supposed to be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of prosecution case and destroy the evidence.

This apprehension expressed by the learned HCGP could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons and as well as the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves for grant of bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed subject to the following conditions:

(1) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with likesum surety to the satisfaction of

the concerned trial Court, where the case in Crime No.129/2017 is pending.

(2) The petitioner shall not tamper or hamper the case of prosecution witnesses.

(3) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing without fail.

(4) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the concerned SHO once in a month i.e. first week of Sunday as per the English monthly calendar in between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for a period of three months.

(5) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Bagalkot District, without prior permission from the competent Court of law.

(6) The petitioner shall not indulge with any criminal activities henceforth.

If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.