Criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail in a murder conspiracy case (Sections 302, 364, 201 IPC). Court rejected plea for parity with another accused, finding prima facie material due to enmity and telephone exchanges against petitioner.
Bail application dismissed; order declares prima facie material exists against the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 14TH day of March 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SREEDHAR RAO
Criminal Petition No.1408/2013
BETWEEN:
RAMESH BAYARI S/o. LATE SUBBANNA BAYARI AGED 38 YEARS SUBRAMANYA NILAYA, KOKKANBAILU VANDARU VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 227
... PETITIONER
(By Sri M.J.ALVA, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SHANKARNARAYANA POLICE SHANKARNARAYANA POLICE STATION KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 227 ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri S.DORERAJ, SPP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR. NO.5/2013 OF SHANKARANARAYANA P.S., UDUPI, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 364, 302 AND 201 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. THE S.J., UDUPI HAS REJECTED THE BAIL APPLICATION ON 16.02.2013 IN CRL. MISC. CASE NO.40/2013.
2
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioner is A1. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had property dispute with the deceased Vasudeva Adiga and the civil suits are also pending. The accused said to have conspired with A9; A2 to A8 and A10 to cause murder of Vasudeva Adiga. A4 to A8 said to have executed the murder of Vasudeva Adiga. This Court in Crl.P.No.1124/2013 has granted bail to A9. A2 and A3 have not been arrested and they are being interrogated. A10 is said to be absconding. In respect of A1, the prosecution material discloses that prior to murder and on the date of murder, there were exchange of telephone calls between A1 and A4 to A8. The investigation is said to be still pending.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that A9 has been granted bail. Therefore, on parity this accused also be granted bail because this accused is not directly involved in causing murder.
3
Insofar as A9 is concerned, the prosecution had relied upon the material i.e., telephone calls between A1 and A9. A9 had no direct motive to cause murder of Vasudeva Adiga. However, it was the case of the prosecution that since A9 was the relative of A1, A1 conspired and got the murder of Vasudeva Adiga done. The exchange of telephone calls between A1 and A9 was not found to be incriminating value because they being the relatives, the possibility of talking over in mobile would not necessarily lead to inference of conspiracy. However, in respect of A1/petitioner is concerned he has enemity with Vasudeva Adiga and there are exchange of telephone calls between A1 and A4 to A8, this shows prima-facie material against the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
cp*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail on parity with another accused already released on bail.
Whether prima facie material against the petitioner is sufficient to deny bail in a murder conspiracy case.
Whether the communication between the petitioner and other accused amounts to evidence of conspiracy.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramesh Bayari
State of Karnataka
K. Sreedhara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
