Allowed

Sri Mallikarjun S/O Ramakrishna Hadapad v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2020CRL.P/101279/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused lodged in a murder trial involving circumstantial evidence and lack of eye-witnesses, granting bail with personal bond and supervision conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner-accused on bail on a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties subject to periodic marking of attendance.

Sri Mallikarjun S/O Ramakrishna Hadapad Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P.NO.101279/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MALLIKARJUN S/O RAMAKRISHNA HADAPAD AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: MUGAD VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: DHARWAD, NOW AT HARIJAN KERI, MANJARAGI PLOT, KELGERI, DHARWAD.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DHARWAD SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶12

RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 IN SC NO.173/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD (CRIME NO.95/2019) REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 120B R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE BY THE RESPONDENT SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHRAWAD.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.95/2019 of Dharwad Sub Urban Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B r/w 34 of IPC.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondentState.

¶20

¶21

The case of the prosecution in brief is

¶22

that on 27/7/2019, the complainant Rakesh lodged a missing complaint stating that his brother Nagaraj was missing since 26/7/2019. The said missing complaint was registered in Crime No.94/2019. On 29/7/2019 at 10.00 p.m., the dead body of Nagaraj was found behind the K.U.D. Ladies Hostel, Dharwad. Thereafter, Rakesh lodged a complaint alleging that his brother Nagaraj was doing money lending business. His friend-Mallikarjun i.e. petitioneraccused No.1 had taken a hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for the purpose of his sister’s marriage on the condition that he will repay the same. However, accused No.1 failed to repay the said hand loan and in this regard, there was a dispute between them etc. Complaint was lodged against petitioner and two others.

¶23

¶24

In the course of investigation, one

¶25

Naveen (A2) and Rakesh (A3) were arrested on 31/7/2019. Thereafter, petitioner (A1) came to be arrested on 2/8/2019. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the said accused.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that petitioner/accused No.1 had borrowed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the deceased and he had not

¶27

repaid the amount. In this connection, there was a quarrel between them. On 9/7/2019 a notorized agreement was executed by accused No.1 undertaking to repay the said amount within one month. In spite of that Nagaraj used to harass accused No.1 and he had gone to his house at Mugad village and abused his mother and pregnant sister. As such, accused No.1 was grinding an axe against Nagaraj. In this background, on 25/7/2019, accused No.1 along

¶28

¶29

with accused Nos.2 and 3 hatched a plan near Anupama Bar situated at Srinagar cross, to do away with the life of Nagaraj. Thereafter, on 26/7/2019, in the afternoon, accused Nos.1 and 2 took the deceased to Nilgiri plantation behind the Ladies hostel situated inside KUD campus and administered alcohol to him and accused No.1 picked up a quarrel with him and assaulted with a wooden club on his face. Accused No.3 assaulted with a wooden club on his legs. Accused No.2 threw chilli powder on his face. When Nagaraj tried to escape, accused No.1 once again assaulted on his head 4 to 5 times and accused No.3 also assaulted on various parts of his body and committed his murder.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. The entire case is based on

¶31

¶32

circumstantial evidence. The prosecution is placing reliance on the CC TV footage installed at the liquor shop and science museum. The said CC TV footage is subject to its authenticity. He submits that there are no witnesses who have seen the deceased in the company of this accused. The overt act attributed against this petitioner is imaginary. He submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 2/8/2019. The material collected by the prosecution against accused Nos.1 and 2 are same. As such, now accused No2. is already enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.100912/2020 vide order dated 27/8/2020. Therefore, he submits that by imposing conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶33

The learned HCGP on the other hand submits that the CC TV footage clearly reveals

¶34

¶35

the movement of accused Nos.1, 2 and the deceased together near Residency Liquor shop. from where they purchased liquor. Investigation Officer has collected material regarding purchase of liquor and chilli powder by accused persons. The petitioner-accused No.1 had borrowed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and in this regard, there is an agreement executed by the petitioner. There is a notarized agreement executed by the petitioner undertaking to repay the amount within one month. She submits that since accused No.1 was not willing to pay the amount, he has conspired with accused Nos.2 and 3 and all of them have committed the murder. She would also contend that CW-23the Security Guard has stated about the quarrel which took place on 26/7/2019 at about 4.50 p.m., and he has seen this petitioner going away from the spot on a motorcycle. Hence, she

¶36

¶37

submits that there are sufficient material

¶38

against this petitioner and seeks to reject the petition.

¶39

The case of the prosecution is that

¶40

petitioner-accused No.1 had taken a hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the deceased for the purpose of his sister’s marriage. He had failed to repay the said amount, even after executing an agreement undertaking to repay the amount. Since the deceased was insisting him to pay the amount, he conspired with accused Nos.2 and 3 and committed the murder.

¶41

circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses. The missing complaint was lodged on 27/7/2019. Thereafter, on 29/7/2019 at about 10.00 p.m., the dead body of Nagaraj was found behind the K.U.D. Ladies hostel, Dharwad. The

¶42

¶43

prosecution is relying on the footages of the CC TV camera which was installed near the liquor shop and science museum. It is stated that the deceased was seen along with accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said CC TV footage.

¶44

Perusal of the statement of CW23, a security guard, goes to show that on 26/7/2019 at 4.00 p.m., when he was near the Women’s Hostel, few inmate of the hostel informed him that some quarrel is going on. Thereafter, he saw two persons running away from the spot. Another person went away on a bike. In his further statement, recorded on 2/8/2019, he has identified the petitioner as the person who went away on the motor cycle. Even though on 26/7/2019, he came to know about some quarrel which took place near the Women’s hostel, the dead body was not traced on that

¶45

¶46

day. The statement of CW23 is recorded on 1/8/2019. Admittedly, accused No.2 and 3 were arrested on 31/7/2019 and thereafter, the present petitioner came to arrested on 2/8/2019. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petitioner was arrested on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused Nos.2 and 3. The prosecution has alleged that the present petitioner has assaulted the deceased with stick several times. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. In the CC TV footage, accused No.2 is also stated to have been present along with the deceased. The said accused has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.100912/2020 vide order dated 27/8/2020. Now charge sheet is filed. Hence, the petitioner can be released on bail on the same terms and conditions. Hence, the following:

¶47

¶48

ORDER

¶49

a) Petition is allowed.

¶50

b) Petitioner-accused No.1 in Crime No.95/2019 of Dharwad Sub Urban Police Station, shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶51

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶52

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. iii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance in jurisdictional police station between 10.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. on every Second Saturday of the respective month till the disposal of the case or until further orders.

¶53

¶54

iv) If the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this order.

¶55

The observations made in the order is confined to the disposal of this petition and shall not influence the trial of the case in any manner.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Vmb

Sri Mallikarjun S/O Ramakrishna Hadapad v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mallikarjun S/O Ramakrishna Hadapad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanchikeri Manjunatha @ Manjanna @ Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Chetan S/O Hanamanthappa Pujar Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijaykumar S/O Chandrashekarappa Matti Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Devawwa W/O Late Komareppa Lingadalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Basappa Kareppa Chandargi, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Shantha Kumara S @ S. Shanthakumar Vs the State of Karnataka