Allowed

Santosh S/O Peerappa Shirur v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2020CRL.P/100564/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka granted bail to accused No.1 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case, relying on parity with another accused and citing principles that bail gravity alone does not justify rejection.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail registered via personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties and strict conditions including no witness tampering and monthly police station attendance.

Santosh S/O Peerappa Shirur Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^{T H} DAY OF JULY, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100564/2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SANTOSH S/O. PEERAPPA SHIRUR AGED: 19 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KOPPA S.R., TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587116.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI ANANT HEGDE, ADVOCATE.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY P.S.I., BILAGI POLICE STATION, REP. THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP.)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.17/2020 (CRIME NO.0145/2019 OF BILAGI POLICE STATION, C.C.NO.4/2020) PENDING ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE, REGISTERED

¶16

¶17

FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, ETC.,.

¶18

RESERVED FOR ORDER ON : 8.7.2020 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 10.7.2020

¶19

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by accused No.1, under section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail in Crime No.145/2019 of Bilgi P.S., S.C.No.17/2020, on the file of District and Sessions Court, Bagalkote, registered for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201, 120B read with section 34 of IPC.

¶22

The prosecution case is that on the

¶23

complaint filed by mother of the deceased, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that, on 20.10.2019, afternoon at about 2.30 p.m., her son Pavadeppa left the house, but he did not return in the evening. On enquiry, her

¶24

¶25

relative Shrishail informed that the complainant’s son Pavadeppa and accused No.1 Santosh and Manjunath were going towards the river. On enquiry, the said accused did not inform anything. Later, on 23.10.2019 two persons by name Parasappa and Chandru informed that the dead body of her son Pavadeppa is floating in the river. On getting the said information the complainant and others went near the river and the dead body of her son, which was tied along with a stone with a wire was taken out from the river. Accused No.1 Santosh was having intimacy with complainant’s daughter, for that reason the complainant’s son had warned accused No.1. Therefore in order to take revenge, both accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed murder of Pavadeppa and thrown the dead body in the river to cause disappearance of the evidence.

¶26

¶27

On registering the complaint, the police

¶28

have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. The accused No.1 was arrested on 24.10.2019. Since then he is in judicial custody. The bail petition filed before the Sessions Court is rejected.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent State. Perused the charge sheet

¶30

records.

¶31

It is submitted by the counsel for the

¶32

petitioner that accused No.2 has been granted bail by the Sessions Court, against whom the same allegations have been made by the prosecution. Accused No.1 being on the same footing is entitled to bail on the ground of parity. There are no eye witnesses or direct evidence. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The investigation is completed, as such the presence

¶33

¶34

of the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. Due to the detention, the petitioner is put to hardship.

¶35

Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that CW.18 to CW.21 are the persons who have seen accused Nos.1 and 2 going along with the complainant’s son Pavadeppa. According to their version, both accused had taken the deceased victim with them, which clearly goes to prove the last seen theory. As per the information disclosed by the accused, the wire used for strangulating the victim has been seized. There is clinching evidence to prove the involvement of the accused. Thus, the Sessions Court has rightly rejected the bail application.

¶36

As could be seen from the charge sheet records, there are no eye witnesses. The entire

¶37

case is based on the last seen theory and circumstantial evidence. The complainant has

¶38

¶39

stated that her son had warned accused No.1 Santosh as he had intimacy with his sister. But there is no mention about any rivalry or strong motive.

¶40

Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. The dead body of the victim was found in the river after three days. The said dead body was not recovered at the instance of the accused. In the medical reports it is stated that the dead body was tied to a big stone, but according to the prosecution version it was floating. At this stage it is needless to make elaborate discussion or to give any finding as the same is not permissible while considering the bail application.

¶41

The Sessions Judge has granted bail to accused No.2 who is said to have joined with

¶42

¶43

accused No.1 in committing the murder of the deceased. But the bail petition of accused No.1 is rejected on the ground that he is likely to tamper the prosecution witnesses. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no rivalry whatsoever between accused No.1 and the deceased victim. Since the investigation is completed, there are no chances of interfering with the investigation. The petitioner/accused is willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

¶44

It is well settled principle that the gravity of the offences alleged alone cannot be a ground to reject the bail. In a decision reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 883, between Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal vs. State of Tamil Nadu , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

¶45

“The considerations which normally weigh with the Court in granting bail in non-bailable offences are – the nature

¶46

¶47

and seriousness of offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶48

circumstances of the case and submission of the

¶49

counsel, this Court is of the view that accused No.1 is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. The objection of the prosecution regarding tampering with the prosecution witnesses may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C., is allowed.

¶52

Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.145/2019 of Bilgi

¶53

¶54

P.S., now pending in S.C.No.17/2020, on the file of District and Sessions Court, Bagalkote, subject to the following conditions.

¶55

i) The petitioner/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶56

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶57

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior

¶58

permission, till the disposal of the case.

¶59

iv) The petitioner shall mark his

¶60

attendance before the concerned police station on the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till conclusion of the trial.

¶61

¶62

If the petitioner/accused violates any of the conditions, the bail order automatically stands cancelled.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Mrk/-

Santosh S/O Peerappa Shirur v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh S/O Peerappa Shirur v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Shrishail Mallikarjun Vidyavardhak Sangha Vs the District Registrar of

Dharmappa S/O Basavantappa Badiger Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangadhar S/O Basavanneppa Shettikeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sayed Mohammad S/O.Syed Mahibubsab Vs the State

Basavaraj Singh @ Balavanth Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Bilal S/O Ladu Sab Vs the State of Karnataka