AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawad Rahim
These two petitions are by the accused who are ranked as accused Nos. 1 and 3. Criminal Petition No. 10862/2012 is by the accused No. 1, while Criminal Petition No. 10960/2012 is by the accused No. 3, who are facing charge for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 3(2) (5) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, in the matter relating to homicidal death of Sathyavanth. While in the judicial custody, they seek bail. As the material allegation, on which they were arrested is the same, both the petitions are clubbed and taken up for consideration together.
Sri. B. Chidananda, Learned Counsel appears for accused No. 1 in the first petition and Sri. Basavaraj, Learned Counsel appears for accused No. 3 in the second petition. They have taken me through the records and orders passed by the trial Court and this Court, on the applications moved by the co-accused. On behalf of State, Sri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, learned Government Pleader has filed statement of objections, which I have considered.
Prosecution case and investigation has resulted in compilation of several statements of witnesses and documents. It reveals: relating to dispute to secure 8 acres of land, a woman - Kavita conspired with accused No. 6 - Adiveppa to murder her brother and enlisted support of several persons, which include accused Nos. 4 to 7. They then approached Vaddara. Gangaraju offering Rs. 5,00,000/- to kill Sathyavantha. Accused No. 1 agreed and received Rs. 25,000/ through accused No. 2 - Ananda Kumar. Then they worked out details to achieve the object and on 12.11.2010, the 1st accused (petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 10862/2012) approached Sathyavantha offering to get him gold at a very cheap rate and invited him to meet near canal at 9.30 p.m. in Cowl Bazaar, Bellary. Sathyavantha believed such misrepresentation and went to the spot along with the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 11960/2012, namely, Anjineyalu, on his motorcycle. It is alleged, the accused No. 1 has sprinkled chilly powder, while accused No. 2 assaulted him with chopper on the head causing injuries, which proved fatal. The accused No. 1 took the granite stone and smashed his head, killing him instantly. The body was dumped in a ditch after robbing two gold chain and cash of Rs. 8,000/- and one mobile, as also gold ring and watch from the possession of the deceased. Since Sathyavantha''s whereabouts were not known, the report was lodged and police officer discovered the body. They arrested accused No. 1 and interrogated him, which revealed deep-rooted conspiracy amongst them, accused No. 6 -- Adiveppa, accused No. 7 - Kavitha, as also the petitioner in Criminal petition No. 10960/2012. Thus they were arrested and are in judicial custody. Their interrogation resulted in recording of statements.
The information collected during investigation reveals, Sathyavantha was killed not by the accused Nos. 6 and 7, but they had hired accused Nos. 1 and 2 to commit the crime. Therefore, Section 120B of Cr. P.C is invoked to arrest all of them together for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC.
Accused Nos. 4 to 7 are said to have been granted bail. Accused No. 4 - Mahesh, against whom there is allegation that he had joined in the conspiracy, was admitted to bail by order of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 10068/2011. Similarly, Mailari - accused No. 5 has been admitted to bail apart from Adiveppa and Kavita - accused Nos. 6 and 7 respectively. These orders have embolden the petitioners to seek bail on the ground that the main offenders, who hatched the conspiracy have been admitted to bail by this Court and therefore, consistency in consideration demands the applicants may also be given the same benefit.
Normally, this submission is acceptable, but on facts, the petitioners do not stand at par with the beneficiaries of the bail. As could be seen from the material collected during investigation, the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 10862/2012 is the author of the injuries along with accused No. 2, which accounted for death of the death. As far as petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 10960/2012 is concerned, it is he, who had taken the deceased to the spot on his motorcycle, where he met with his death. This was not the position as regards other accused are concerned.
Be that as it may. Even if they have been successful in obtaining bail, it does not become a president to admit these individuals to bail. Grant of bail depends on several factors and merely because accused would not abscond and would be available for trial or punishment is no ground. It is the felonious propensity in their acts, which shall be the main consideration. This is not a case where the offenders are alleged to have indulged in physical violence. The murder of Sathyavantha is achieved, as alleged by the prosecution, by hiring killers on payment of money. This makes the crime more deplorable and no leniency is warranted. On perusal of the orders passed by this Court in case of other accused, it is seen that, for want of direct material, they have been granted bail. But we cannot expect from prosecution direct material evidence to prove conspiracy. It is to be inferred from all attending circumstances, and if we do that, I find sufficient force in the contention of the State that petitioners in both these cases have to be held as conspirators responsible for the homicidal death of Sathyavantha and therefore, even if other considerations are in their favour, grant of bail is not justified
The petitions are therefore rejected.