Srinivas @ Bethanagere Srinivas vs State of Karnataka

Jawad Rahim, J.—Petitioner is accused No. 10 in Cr. No. 67/2009 facing charge for the offences punishable u/s 302, 120(B) r/w 149 of IPC, which after completion of investigation re-registered as CC No. 12765/2009.

The prosecution case is that Anantharaju, Nuthan Gowda, were involved in the murder of Balekere Basavaraj and since then there was enmity between them and Lohith Gowda and his group. Anantharaju, Nuthan Gowda ranked as accused Nos. 7 and 8 respectively conspired to kill Lohith Gowda. It is alleged they knew that the petitioner herein was engaged in Real Estate business with Lohith Gowda and there was some dispute relating to that business also. It is further alleged that Nuthan Gowda was also involved in kidnapping of Arvind and was confined to judicial custody. Thus, Anantharaju, Nuthan Gowda and the petitioner herein were in judicial custody for the offences indicated above. While remaining in custody, they are alleged to have conspired with each other to kill Lohith Gowda and in this regard Anantharaju paid Rs. 20,000/- and Nuthan Gowda arranged Car for use to commit murder of Lohith Gowda. Petitioner is alleged to have induced Lohith Gowda to go to a particular place, whereas the other accused joined together and killed him.

Anantharaju was before this Court in Crl. P. No. 6167/2009 and Nuthan Gowda was the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 6220/2009. Both the petitions came to be rejected on the ground that there was no sufficient material to show their complicity in the murder.

Learned Counsel would submit that prosecution case itself is that the deceased was on the way to prison carrying food for the petitioner. Therefore, there was no conflict between them. The second aspect pointed out is that the petitioner and the victim were in business, but there are no disputes. Petitioner was in custody in relation to murder of Balekere Basavaraj and in connection with another issue involving rivalry of Lohith Gowda with the other co-accused namely Anantharaju and Nuthan Gowda. It is further pointed out that when accused No. 1 to 6 were arrested, there was no material even against Anantharaju and Nuthan Gowda. Only on the basis of voluntary statement of accused Nos. 1 to 4, the other two were indicted and on their statement i.e. statement of accused No. 7 the petitioner has been indicated much later and not at the time when the FIR was registered.

Per contra, learned Addl. SPP would point out to the fact that the petitioner while in custody knew of the conspiracy by the other co-accused and he joined with them in ensuring that the conspiracy is put into practice and in that regard to achieve the object of killing Lohith Gowda he induced Lohith Gowda to go to a particular predetermined spot where the other accused killed him. On this ground, it is urged he is also vicariously liable for the offence.

Be that as it may. The prosecution does not dispute that accused Nos. 1 to 6 came to be arrested and during interrogation accused Nos. 1 to 4 revealed of the complicity of accused Nos. 7 and 8 only. They made no statement about the involvement of the petitioner. The petitioner came to be arrested only when accused No. 7 on arrest indicted him as the person who asked Lohith Gowda to go to a particular spot. In these circumstances, while there is allegation that Anantharaju gave Rs. 20,000/- and Nuthan Gowda provided a car to accused Nos. 1 to 6 to commit murder, as far as petitioner is concerned, no act is attributed to him in killing the victim except conspiracy. The only allegation is he had asked Lohith Gowda to go to a particular spot. However, considering all the circumstances discussed above, I do not find that the material collected so far is of such nature as to deny the petitioner bail since he has also been interrogated and remanded to judicial custody only with regard to his asking Lohith Gowda to go to a particular spot. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the petition.

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioner is hereby admitted to bail on the following conditions that:

i) He shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate or Sessions Judge.

ii) He shall mark his attendance at the jurisdictional Police Station where he resides, once in 15 days on any Saturday between 7. AM and 7 PM till commencement of the trial.

iii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.