Dismissed

Sri.M.Vijayendra Reddy S/O K.B.Muni Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2019CRL.P/101762/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by a person alleged to be the nephew of the deceased in a neck-cutting murder case. The court held that his presence at the scene, delay in reporting an alleged assault, and the missing jewelry made custodial interrogation necessary, denying bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed; petitioner not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Sri.M.Vijayendra Reddy S/O K.B.Muni Reddy Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

¶6

CRL.P.NO.101762/2019

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI.M.VIJAYENDRA REDDY S/O K.B.MUNI REDDY AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BORNKUNTE KASTHURI RANGAPPANENI HALLI, TAL: & DIST: CHITRADURGA. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI, NOW REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD, BENCH AT DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO

¶14

¶15

THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.26/2019 REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 302 OF IPC, BY GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI.

¶16

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This is an anticipatory bail petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, in Crime No.26/2019 of Gandhi Nagar police station, Bellary, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶19

It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant one M.Timmappa lodged a complaint wherein he has alleged that his sister by name Pushpavathi was alone residing in a house situated at 3^rd Floor of Food and Needs shop building, near Gandi Nagar Market, Bellary. On 4/4/2019 between 8.00p.m. and

¶20

¶21

6a.m. some unknown persons went to the house

¶22

of his sister and committed her murder by cutting her neck and went away by locking the house. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent-police have registered a case against unknown persons for the aforesaid offence.

¶23

The petitioner has stated that he has no nexus with the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no single allegation against the petitioner and FIR is also lodged against unknown persons. He has further stated that the deceased was none other than the sister of the petitioner’s wife’s mother. The petitioner attended the funeral and other formalities of the deceased. Only when he learnt that the respondent police are trying to arrest him based on the CC TV footage, he approached the Sessions Court seeking

¶24

¶25

anticipatory bail. The circumstances shows the innocence of the petitioner and he is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶26

The petitioner has further stated

¶27

that without prejudice to his defence, he has given explanation that he is the relative of the deceased Pushpavathi and on that day, he went to purchase the medicines from Dr.P.Vadiraj from whom he is taking treatment for his son. The said hospital is situated near the residence of deceased Pushpatavi. On that day, the deceased saw the petitioner and asked him to come to her house. Accordingly, the petitioner went to her house and after taking a cup of tea, he returned back. While returning, some persons, who were hiding themselves in the dark passage came and sat in the car for some time. He had doubt that the said persons were the

¶28

¶29

persons who were present outside the house of the deceased, he again went to the house of the deceased. Two unknown persons hold the petitioner and tied his hand and assaulted him.

¶30

The persons inside the house had already committed the murder of the deceased Pushpavathi. After two hours, the said persons released the petitioner and threatened him not to disclose the said fact to anybody, otherwise

¶31

they will kill him and his family members. The petitioner was totally shocked and under fear kept without informing about the same. The respondent police ought to have seized the CC TV footage from 6.00 p.m. to 6.00 am. on the date of incident in order to ascertain whether some other persons entered the house and committed the murder of the deceased. There is no material to show that the petitioner entered the house of the deceased. CC TV footage shows

¶32

¶33

only the petitioner entering into the said building wherein at the second floor, the deceased was residing. There is no eye witnesses and motive and therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied bail. He undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not necessary and as such he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court

¶35

Government Pleader.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that FIR was registered against unknown persons. On the basis of the CC TV footage, it can be only said that the petitioner had been to the building where in the second Floor of the building the deceased was residing. The learned counsel further submitted

¶37

¶38

that the petitioner has given explanation since the CC TV footage shows that he visited the said building on that day. Therefore, the alleged threat by the unknown persons has been stated in the petition without affecting his defence. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner attended the funeral of the deceased. He was all along present with the complainant. There are no antecedents against the petitioner. He is ready to co-operate with the investigation and abide by the conditions which may be imposed by the Court and to furnish adequate surety.

¶39

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is the relative of the deceased. Explanation given by the petitioner that some unknown persons tied his hands and later he

¶40

¶41

was released with threat and therefore, he did

¶42

not file any complaint or informed the police itself is doubtful, and shows about the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime.

¶43

The learned High Court Government Pleader further submitted that the wife of the petitioner has stated before the Investigation Officer that the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime cannot be ruled out and she suspected her husband in the murder of the deceased Pushpavathi. The copy of the statement of M.Himabindu-W/o M.Vijeyandra Reddy is made available for perusal of the Court. Learned High Court Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner kept quite without disclosing about the incident, till the CC TV footage were

¶44

¶45

obtained by the investigating officer. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in order to recover the golden ornaments which are missing from the house of the deceased.

¶46

The complaint was filed by one

¶47

Mekkina Timmappa, the brother of the deceased on 5/4/2019. He has stated in the said complaint that after receiving the call from the daughter of the deceased, he went to the house where the deceased was residing and found that it was under door lock. Thereafter, he himself

¶48

and one Ravitej opened the upper portion of the door by breaking and went inside the house and found that Pushpavathi was dead and her body was lying on the bed. He noticed that she was murdered by having cut injuries over the neck. He has further stated that after committing the murder of the deceased, culprit might have door

¶49

10 -

¶50

locked the house and left. It is not stated that

¶51

the door of the house was locked from inside and it cannot be opened from the outside so as to not to open from the outside. The murder of the deceased cannot be disputed. The place of the incident is also inside the house and in the bedroom. The very explanation ordered by the petitioner that he had been to the said building on that date and that he had been to the house of the deceased and after taking a cup of tea, he returned back and while returning, some persons who had hidden in the dark passage came and sat in his car and they tied his hand and assaulted him and subsequently, they threatened him and released, goes to show that he is closely connected with the crime in the case. The petitioner if so innocent, should have informed the police about the alleged incident. Thus, the alleged threat given by the unknown

¶52

11 -

¶53

persons cannot be accepted, that the petitioner kept quite without disclosing the said fact to anybody including the complainant, daughter of the deceased and attended the funeral of the deceased. As submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader, the petitioner tried to offer explanation only when the CC TV footage were recovered in the case. Even the petitioner has admitted that he had been to the house of the deceased on that day and according to him, he suspect those two persons who tied his hands and threatened, that they might have committed the murder of the deceased. In that event, it was the duty of the petitioner to set law in motion by filing the complaint or informing the police about the alleged incident in which he was assaulted and threatened by those unknown persons. It is only after seeing the CC TV footage the petitioner has stated that those

¶54

12 -

¶55

persons might have committed the murder of the

¶56

deceased. There is also mention in the complaint that golden ornaments of the

¶57

deceased are missing from the house. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he is ready to abide by any conditions and cooperate with the investigation and he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to any condition cannot be accepted.

¶58

The facts and situation made out in the case goes to show that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Even after CC TV footage were recovered by the investigating officer and when the petitioner came to know about the same, the petitioner should have informed the police or filed a complaint regarding the alleged incident,

¶59

13 -

¶60

wherein his hands were tied and assaulted, threatened with life by two unknown persons.

¶61

Under these circumstances this

¶62

Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the bail petition stands dismissed.

¶63

The observations made in the order that the petitioner has given some explanation should not come in the way of petitioner taking any defence.

¶64

Sd/- JUDGE

¶65

Vmb

Sri.M.Vijayendra Reddy S/O K.B.Muni Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.M.Vijayendra Reddy S/O K.B.Muni Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mahadevi W/O Mahadev Dalawai, Vs the Division Controller

Yankappa @ Venkappa S/O Gangappa Dalawai, Vs the Division Controller

Mahaboobsha S/O Immamsab Vs State of Karnataka

Dayanand S/O. Hanumanth Nayak Vs Suresh S/O. Subray Shet

Basavaraj S/O Shantappa Shetteppanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Gutteppa S/O Bhimappa Karibheemannanavar Vs State of Karnataka