Allowed

Maki Ramesh @ Ramu S/O. Mugappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2020CRL.P/100578/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal JP under Section 439 CrPC for bail in murder case involving circumstantial evidence. Court allowed bail imposing conditions regarding personal bond, witness interaction, jurisdiction, and police attendance, citing presumption of innocence and completion of investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in Crime No.160/2019 subject to execution of personal bond with sureties and compliance with conditions regarding witness tampering, jurisdiction, and police reporting.

Maki Ramesh @ Ramu S/O. Mugappa Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^{S T} DAY OF JULY, 2020 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100578/2020

¶6

BETWEEN: MAKI RAMESH @ RAMU S/O. MUGAPPA AGE : ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O : 14^{T H} WARD, NEAR DODDA MASQUR, KUDLIGI TOWN, DIST: BALLARI

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI S A SANDUR, ADVOCATE.)

¶9

AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUDLLIGI POLICE STATION, KUDLIGI TALUKA, DIST: BALLARI BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

... RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP.)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR

¶13

¶14

BAIL IN CRIME NO.160/2019 OF KUDLIGI P.S. PENDING IN S.C.NO.5015/2020 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201 OF IPC INSOFAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, ETC.,.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed by the accused, under section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail in Crime No.160/2019 of Kudligi P.S., pending in S.C.No.5015/2020 on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete), registered for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 of IPC.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that on

¶19

the complaint filed by father of the victim, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that, the accused and the complainant’s son were close friends. About 8 days prior to the complaint, complainant’s son Nagaraj informed

¶20

¶21

that he is suspecting about the illicit relationship between his friend Ramesh and is wife Solamma. Therefore the complainant had called the parents of accused Ramesh and requested him to advice their son. In this connection on 14.10.2019 evening at about 6.00 p.m. both accused and victim quarreled and it was learnt that after the verbal altercation both accused and victim went on a motorcycle. On the next day on 15.10.2019, at 12.00 noon a person by name Mugappa S/o.Durgappa informed the complainant that the dead body of his son Nagaraj is found in a lake near tamarind trees on the left side of the bypass road. On going to the spot, the dead body was found there in the lake. Hence the complaint is registered against the accused alleging that on account of the illicit relationship the accused has committed murder of complainant’s son Nagaraj.

¶22

¶23

On registering the complaint, the police

¶24

have conducted the investigation. The accused was arrested on 16.10.2019. The bail petition filed before the Sessions Court is rejected. The accused is in judicial custody till this day.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the

¶26

respondent State. Perused the charge records.

¶27

It is the submission of the learned

¶28

counsel for the petitioner that there are no eye witnesses or direct evidence to prove the involvement of the accused in commission of the offence. According to the prosecution version, the motive for commission of the offence is that the accused had illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased. But the same cannot be a ground to come to the irresistible conclusion that the accused has committed the murder of Nagaraj. Since the investigation is completed, the custodial

¶29

¶30

interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Due to the detention, he is put to great hardship. He is ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.

¶31

Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that the statement of wife of the accused indicate that she had extra marital relationship with the accused. The statement of one of the witnesses indicates the last seen theory. There is ample evidence to prove the prosecution case. In the event of granting bail, the accused is likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, as such the bail petition deserves to be rejected.

¶32

Having regard to the submission made

¶33

by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. Even according to the complaint averments, both accused and deceased

¶34

¶35

were close friends and on the date of alleged incident, after verbal altercation both have gone on the motorcycle. The entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence. The medical records disclose that larynx and trachea were intact. But as per the opinion of the Medical Officer, the death was due to asphyxia. At this stage it is needless to make an elaborate discussion in order to give any specific finding as the same is not permissible while considering the bail application.

¶36

It is well settled that matters to be

¶37

considered in an application for bail are:

¶38

“(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and

¶39

¶40

standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses, may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused.”

¶41

In a decision reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of Uttara Pradesh and Another , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

¶42

“A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However,

¶43

¶44

there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.”

¶45

In the present case the investigation is completed. No grounds have been made out by the prosecution to show that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Even there are no

¶46

¶47

allegations about the rivalry between the complainant or the family members of the accused. The accused is residing at the address shown in the cause title and the same is not disputed. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, accused is likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

¶48

In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view there are valid grounds for granting bail, subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.160/2019 of Kudligi P.S., pending in S.C.No.5015/2020 on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete), subject to the following conditions.

¶53

i) The petitioner 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.

¶54

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in

¶55

tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶56

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the

¶57

jurisdiction of the trial Court/Sessions Court without prior permission, till the disposal of the case.

¶58

iv) The petitioner shall mark his

¶59

attendance before the concerned police station on

¶60

¶61

the first Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till conclusion of the trial.

¶62

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

¶63

SD/JUDGE

¶64

Mrk/-

Maki Ramesh @ Ramu S/O. Mugappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maki Ramesh @ Ramu S/O. Mugappa 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

Avvaneppa S/O Rangappa Kalasannavar, Vs State of Karnataka

Yallappa Yamanappa Halab Vs the State of Karnataka

Jagadish S/O Linganagouda Pavanagoudar Vs the State of Karnataka

Vittal Laxman Wadavani Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Mahesh S/O Appasab Bhate Vs State of Karnatka

Shri.Basavraj S/O Shivappa Bhate Vs State