Allowed

Kallolli S/O Durgappa Melkundi and Ors. v. the State through Farhatabad P.S.

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2013CRL.P/15140/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Gulbarga allowed bail for three accused in a murder prosecution. The court held that while the prosecution alleged conspiracy to hire hitmen, the petitioners were not prime accused and could not be linked with certainty to the murder.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail furnished self bond of Rs.50,000 with solvent surety.

Kallolli S/O Durgappa Melkundi and Ors. Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15140 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Kallolli S/o Durgappa Melkundi Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture,

¶9

Yallappa S/o Durgappa Melkundi Age: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture,

¶10

Shankar S/o Erappa @ Kalappa Ningurkal Age: 25 years, Occ: Coolie work All are R/o Sirnoor, Taluk and District: Gulbarga. … Petitioners

¶11

(Shri Ustad Sadat Hussain, Advocate) AND: The State Through Farhatabad Police Station. … Respondent (Shri S S Aspalli, Government Pleader)

¶12

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the accused/ petitioners on bail in Crime No.136/2012 of Farhatabad Police Station, which is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 120B, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶14

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

¶17

The learned Government Pleader submits that he should be granted time to file statement of objections. The matter has been listed on 01.02.2013 and 06.02.2013 and it is now posted again for orders. Hence to indefinitely grant time to the Government Pleader may not be fair.

¶18

It is the case of the prosecution that one Rupa was

¶19

sister of the complainant. She had fallen in love with Yellappa,

¶20

¶21

who was a married man with two children and she insisted in marrying him inspite of that circumstance. Therefore, the complainant and the deceased who were Rupa’s brothers were peeved with the fact that she had married Yellappa who was a married man. Added to this, it is alleged that Rupa was being ill-treated by Yellappa’s family members. Therefore, she had returned to her parents’ house and she was residing in her parents’ house for over a month, prior to the incident. It is the allegation of the prosecution that in the light of this enmity between the family of Yellappa and Rupa, the accused had hatched a plan to do away with the life of complainant and Shankar, the brothers of Rupa, and accordingly hired supari killers and it is on account of which Shankar was done to death. It is alleged that Yellappa and his family members had hired supari killers and the present petitioners have helped them to hire the supari killers and accordingly Shankar the brother of the complainant was found dead and immediately prior to his death Shankar had telephoned the complainant who was in

¶22

¶23

Gulbarga, that he wanted him to purchase rope, which was required for the construction work of their house and the complainant in turn had told Shankar to come himself and purchase the rope. However, Shankar who apparently did come to Gulbarga, did not return home, when a search was made, his dead body was found. It is in that background that on the basis of the statements of several witnesses that the police have instituted proceedings. The allegation against the present petitioners is to the effect that they had assisted Yellappa and his family in hiring supari killers. It is alleged that the present petitioners were seen along with the accused in front of Nagamma’s hotel and it is this circumstance which prompted the prosecution to hold that the petitioners were also involved in actively engaging supari killers and doing Shankar to death. However, there are no direct eyewitness of the petitioners having engaged the supari killers and having killed Shankar. It is only the circumstantial evidence that is sought to be ranged against the petitioners. The petitioners not being directly linked

¶24

¶25

either with Yellappa’s family or with complainants family, it cannot be said with certainty that the petitioners are indeed responsible for the murder. In that view of the matter, the petitioners have made out a case for bail.

¶26

The learned Government Pleader would oppose the bail petition and contends that the matter is still under investigation and several accused are absconding and that the entire facts and circumstances would be clear only on completion of the investigation. Therefore, the petitioners being enlarged on bail would result in the petitioners indulging in tampering with the prosecution evidence and their witnesses and the petitioners may also abscond and put themselves out of the reach of the law.

¶27

However, given the primary allegations, it cannot be said that the petitioners are indeed the prime accused. The allegations against them are incidental and it is to be established

¶28

¶29

at the trial. Therefore, the petitioners have made out a case for enlargement on bail.

¶30

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioners

¶31

shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

i. Each of the petitioners shall furnish a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with a solvent surety, each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶33

ii. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without the leave of the Court.

¶34

iii. The petitioners shall offer all cooperation in the investigation of the offence.

¶35

iv. The petitioners shall make themselves available for further investigation at all points of time.

¶36

¶37

v. The petitioners shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing of the case.

¶38

vi. The petitioners shall not, in any manner seek to tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

��

¶41

swk

Kallolli S/O Durgappa Melkundi and Ors. v. the State through Farhatabad P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallolli S/O Durgappa Melkundi and Ors. v. the State through Farhatabad P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju S/O Limbu Rathod Vs the State through University Ps

Mohammed Nazeeb Hassan S/O Md.Jalal-Hul-Hassan Vs the State of Karnataka through Farthabad Ps

Dilip S/O Hanamanthrao Deshpande Vs the State of Karnataka

Devappa S/O Ayyappa Jadiyar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivappa S/O Bhimappa Agasar Vs Smt. Shantabai W/O Shivappa and Anr.

Veeresh Gouda S/O Bhagavanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka by Idapanur