Veenayak vs The State of Karnataka

B.V. Pinto, J.—This petition is filed seeking bail in Crime No. 244/2013 of Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Bijapur registered on 14.11.2013 for offences u/s 120-B, 302, 201, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was one Advocate by name Shivanagouda Biradar who was having practice in Bijapur district. The first accused is the son of the deceased. He was pestering to give share in the property, which the deceased had received while being adopted. The first accused was habituated to vices. Hence, it is the case of the prosecution that first accused had engaged supari killers to kill the deceased so that he could get the property of his father. The petitioner is none other than the sister''s son of the deceased. The incident of murder of the deceased had occurred on 08.10.2013 whereas on 09.10.2013 a missing complaint has been filed. It is the case of the prosecution that all the accused together conspired to commit murder of the deceased and thereafter carried him in a car on Jamakhandi road towards Babaleshwar Naka and there the deceased was killed by squeezing his neck and throttling him. The petitioner was the driver of the vehicle in which deceased was carried. It is stated that after killing the deceased dead body was put in 2 gunny bags and heavy stones were put in the said bag and dead body was disposed of in the back water of Almatti dam near the Benal bridge. On 13.11.2013 petitioner disclosed this fact to the complainant who is the brother of the deceased. Thereafter FIR came to be lodged. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed.

Sri Shivanand Pattanshetti learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was forced by other four accused to drive the vehicle and they had threatened him that they would murder him if he were to disclose this fact to any person. Hence, petitioner had kept quiet for a period of 32 days. However, it is he who has narrated incident to the complainant. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

Sri Sanjay A. Patil, learned Addl. SPP submits that the statement of the petitioner amounts to extra judicial confession and since the complainant is none other than his maternal uncle the said extra judicial confession alone can lead to the conviction of the accused. The complainant and the petitioner are in a position of trustworthy relationship and at this stage it cannot be held that said confession is either made by force or inducement. Hence, he submits that there is prima facie case against petitioner for having committed offences u/s 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Hence, bail may be rejected.

Without expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the case, on the mere fact that the petitioner has kept quiet for about 32 days when his own maternal uncle has been killed and there being no evidence that he was under captivity by of all other accused for such long time, he is not eligible to be released on bail. Hence, petition is dismissed.