Allowed

Vittal Laxman Wadavani v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2020CRL.P/100581/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against murder by special leave petition of bail granted to accused persons pending trial in Sessions Court. Court imposed conditions to ensure compliance and prevent witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners in S.C. No.16/2020 with conditions of executing personal bond, ensuring witness safety, and restricting movement. Bail cancelled automatically upon violation.

Vittal Laxman Wadavani Vs State of Karnataka — 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.100581/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VITTAL LAXMAN WADAVANI AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SUNAG, TQ: BILAGI DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶8

MANJU @ MANJUNATH S/O. BASAPPA NARI AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: SUNAG, TQ: BILAGI DIST: BAGALKOTE.

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI M B GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD TROUGH BILAGI POLICE STATION

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP.)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 ON BAIL IN S.C. NO.16/2020, ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC, ETC.,.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2, under section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail in S.C.No.16/2020 pending on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, registered for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC.

¶20

The prosecution case is that on the complaint filed by father of the victim, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that, on 10.10.2019 evening at 4.30 p.m. his son Nabisab had gone out of the house. Later at 9.15 p.m. an unknown person came to his house and informed that his son Nabisab has fallen near

¶21

¶22

Poornanandamath. On receiving the said information, the complainant, his wife and daughter went near the spot. On enquiry he informed that on account of the internal injuries caused to his legs he cannot walk. There was injury on his head, nose and neck and other parts of the body. On further enquiry the injured Nabisab informed that he had love affair with a girl by name Rukmini. About six months back her brother accused No.1 Vittal and another by name Manju had warned him that if he continues to talk to his sister, he will be killed. Despite the warning given by them, he was talking to Rukmini over mobile phone. On the said day evening at 7.00 p.m. he called Rukmini over the phone, the call

¶23

was received by her brother. Thereafter both accused Nos.1 and 2 took him over the motorcycle near Sunagad cross bus-stand at about 8.15 p.m. and assaulted him. At that time vehicles were moving on the road, as such they took him to

¶24

¶25

agricultural land and once again assaulted with sticks on his back and head. The injured was brought on the motorcycle near Poornanandamath and left him at the said spot. The injured victim died while he was being taken to the hospital. Then the complainant brought the dead body to the same spot. After consulting the elders in the village, the complaint was filed. After conducting the investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet. The accused persons are arrested on 12.10.2019. The bail petition filed before the Sessions Court is rejected.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶27

petitioners and the learned HCGP. Perused the charge sheet records.

¶28

Relying on the charge sheet records, the learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that there are several doubtful circumstances in the prosecution version. The

¶29

¶30

first mahazar was conducted at the spot where the accused had assaulted the victim, whereas the inquest mahazar is said to have been conducted in the hospital. The complainant has stated that the injured was not taken to the hospital, but the dead body of his son was brought back to the same spot in the village as the injured expired while being taken to the hospital. No reasons are forthcoming as to why the inquest was not conducted at the spot where the dead body was brought back. There is a delay in filing the complaint even though the police station is situated hardly at a distance of 9 kilometers away from the village. According to the prosecution, two spot mahazars have been conducted at two different places. At both places the weapons namely sticks have been seized. The prosecution records do not make out the definite case. The investigation is completed, as such, the presence of the petitioners is not required for custodial

¶31

¶32

interrogation. Due to the detention they are put to great hardship.

¶33

Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that the statement of CW.9 indicate that the accused have assaulted the victim. The statement of CWs.10 and 11 goes to prove the last seen theory. CWs.1, 14 and 15 have stated about the motive for commission of the offence. There are no doubtful circumstances to prove that the accused have not committed the offences. In the event of granting bail, the accused are likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

¶34

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:

¶35

“A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the

¶36

¶37

presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, 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.”

¶38

Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶39

¶40

learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. The circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners indicate that initially they had no definite intention of causing death of the victim. But both the accused have assaulted the victim to teach him a lesson, as the victim had love affair with sister of accused No.1. During the arguments the counsel submitted that at the most the ingredients of section 304 Part I or Part II may be attracted. The circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners indicate that there is no prima facie case. 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.

¶41

It is well settled that matters to be

¶42

considered in an application for bail are:

¶43

¶44

“(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 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.”

¶45

¶46

completed. No grounds have been made out to show that the presence of the petitioners/accused is required for custodial interrogation. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, accused are likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

¶47

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:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

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

¶50

¶51

Consequently, the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 shall be released on bail in S.C.No.16/2020 pending on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, subject to the following conditions.

¶52

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

¶53

ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in

¶54

tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶55

iii) The petitioners shall not leave the

¶56

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

¶57

iv) The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the concerned police station on the first Sunday of every month between

¶58

¶59

10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till conclusion of the trial.

¶60

If the petitioners violate any of the conditions, the bail order automatically stands cancelled.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

Mrk/-

Vittal Laxman Wadavani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vittal Laxman Wadavani 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

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

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

Shri.Basavraj S/O Shivappa Bhate Vs State