Allowed

Rubin S/O Manikappa v. the State through

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2016CRL.P/200478/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition under Section 439 CrPC for enlargement on bail to a petitioner already serving life imprisonment in another case, facing murder and conspiracy charges where the prosecution's theory depended on unseized SIM cards.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to self-bond and surety, parole release in the other case, and standard bail conditions including non-leave of jurisdiction.

Rubin S/O Manikappa Vs the State through — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200478 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN: Rubin S/o Manikappa Aged: 33 years Occupation: Driver Resident of Karmangi Village Taluk: Narayankhed District: Medak Now at Kalaburagi Central Prison

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(Shri Anil Kumar Navadagi, Advocate)

¶10

AND: The State thorough New Town Police Station Bidar, Taluk & District: Bidar

¶11

(Shri P.S. Patil, Government Pleader)

¶12

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to allow the petition and enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.52/2015 of New

¶13

¶14

Town Police Station, Bidar of Distirct: Bidar, which is now pending on the file of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bidar in Sp.C.C.No.42/2015, which is registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code & 25, 27 of Arms Act.

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶18

The present petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in a

¶19

case for the offences punishable under Sections 118, 120(B),

¶20

179, 201, 419, 465, 464, 468, 471 and 302 of the Indian Penal

¶21

Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 2, 5 of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959.

¶22

The admitted circumstance is that the petitioner is

¶23

already suffering imprisonment having been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in respect of yet another criminal case in C.C.No.280/2012 for the offences punishable

¶24

¶25

under Sections 366(k) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. In the present case, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 on the allegations that deceased Hanmanth Ladha had an evil eye on the wife of accused No.1 and therefore accused No.1 in order to eliminate Hanmanth Ladha, had conspired with the petitioner and the other accused Nos.2 and 3 to do away with the life of Hanmanth Ladha. In this background, it is stated that accused No.1 had kept a vigil on the movements of Hanmanth Ladha and was able to trace him and shoot him with a pistol at a traffic signal, while he was travelling in an auto rickshaw. It is the allegation that it was on account of conspiracy that such an act has been carried out. The petitioner – Accused No.4 though was suffering conviction and punishment and was in prison, was yet another accused of having conspired on the basis of the calls that were traced to his cell phone.

¶26

¶27

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would seek to

¶28

produce the call details of the cell phone of the petitioner. It is difficult to prove the main allegation by the prosecution that there was conspiracy hatched by accused No.1 in conjunction with the present petitioner, in the absence of the seizure of the sim card pertaining to the cell phone of accused No.1. The accusation of conspiracy between accused No.1 and the present petitioner could hardly be alleged, let alone be established without the sim card and would submit that given the above circumstances, the theory of conspiracy would have to be established by the prosecution at the trial and the incarceration of the petitioner on mere allegations may disentitle him to be enlarged on parole. Though he is now serving time in the prison, he seeks enlargement on bail on parity of reason since accused No.2 has already been enlarged on bail by this court.

¶29

The learned Government Pleader on the other hand

¶30

would oppose the grant of bail on the footing that the petitioner

¶31

¶32

is a habitual offender and admittedly he is serving time in prison on account of having been found to be guilty in yet another case.

¶33

The further circumstance which casts a strong

¶34

suspicion on the involvement of the petitioner is the background that the petitioner and accused No.1 had met each other in prison and that they had earlier attempted to murder Hanmanth Ladha and had failed in their attempt. Hanmanth Ladha had tried to commit the murder of accused No.1 and therefore, the present petitioner and accused No.1 had the motive of doing away with the life of Hanmanth Ladha. Without the assistance or help of the other accused, the murder could not have been carried out by Accused No.1 and it is on other incriminating materials such as calls received by the petitioner from the phone of accused No.1 that the police have made out a case of conspiracy and would certainly be in a position to prove the same at the trial. On the same facts

¶35

¶36

accused Nos.2 and 3 having been enlarged on bail, would not as matter of course entitle the present petitioner also to seek bail on a parity of reasoning.

¶37

The circumstances under which the petitioner is accused is in variance with the allegations against those accused. However, the learned Government Pleader does not deny the fact that sim card pertaining to the cell phone of accused No.1 is not seized, in the absence of which the theory of conspiracy being established with any degree of certainty cannot be predicted. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail.

¶38

Consequently, though the petitioner is already in prison in relation to conviction in some other case, in so far as the present allegations are concerned, the petitioner would be entitled to be enlarged on bail. The petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶39

¶40

i. The petitioner shall be so enlarged on bail subject to he being released on parole in the aforesaid case, on furnishing a self-bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with one surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶41