This Criminal Petition sought bail for two accused in a murder case involving throttling and drug administration. The High Court upheld their custody, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence linking them to the crime and dismissing the bail plea.
Petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100045/2021
BETWEEN:
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. T R PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA NARGUNDA P.S. R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH DHARWAD-580001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)
2
This petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking to release the petitioners on bail in S.C.No.32/2020 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, arising out of Naragund P.S. Crime No.48/2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 R/w. Section 34 of IPC.
This petition coming on for orders through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 have filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of regular bail in Crime No.48/2020 registered by the Naragund Police for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
have filed charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences on the complaint filed by the brother of the deceased, namely Nagaraj, on 19.04.2020 alleging that his only brother deceased Gadigeppa was residing separately after partition along with his wife – accused No.2. That on 16.04.2020 at about 6.30 am, when he went towards the land, he saw accused No.2 - and the deceased were working in the field and he came back at
3
12.00 pm form the land. Thereafter, accused No.2 - wife of the deceased, came and told him that her husband i.e., the brother of the complainant went along with two persons in the morning at 7.00 am, but he was not returned yet. Thereafter the complainant tried to trace his brother, but not found. Then on 19.04.2020, his uncle’s wife Lakshmavva came and told that one gunny was floating in the water in a pit near the land of one Vasantha. Thereafter the complainant and others went to the said place and removed the gunny bag from the water and on opening the same, they found his brother Gangadhar’s dead body in the said gunny bag. Thereafter he lodged a complaint with the police against unknown persons. On receiving the complaint, the police registered the case against unknown persons. During investigation the police arrested accused nos. 1 and 2 and recorded their voluntary statement. They revealed that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were having illicit intimacy between them and with an intention to kill the deceased, they have committed murder of the deceased by throttling him and for causing his death, they have also said to have given some drugs to the deceased and when he became unconscious, they committed murder of the deceased and they have destroyed the evidence by
4
throwing the dead body into a pit. The accused nos. 1 and 2 are in custody and the bail petition moved by them before the learned Sessions Judge for granting of bail came to be rejected on 19.10.2020. Hence the petitioners are before this court seeking for grant of bail.
strongly objected the bail petition on the ground that accused Nos.
5
1 and 2 had illicit intimacy between them and with an intention to kill Gangadhar, they made him swallow sleeping tablets and thereafter by pressing his face and compressing his neck, they committed his murder. CW16, who is the wife of accused No.1 has given statement that she had been prescribed some sleeping tablets by the doctor and she had kept the same in the house. She stated that accused No.1 had taken the said tablets and gave them to the deceased. As per the report of the PSI, which connects the accused No.1 with the crime, accused No.2 was found last seen with the deceased on 16.04.2020. Thereafter the deceased was found missing, which clearly goes to show that accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the cause for the murder of the deceased. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6
and 2 together were shifting the gunny bag containing some material in the bag. Subsequently, it was traced by CW1 that it is containing the dead body of his brother. CW16, wife of accused No.1 has stated that the tablets used by her were taken by her husband i.e., accused No.1. In the FSL report, the stomach of the deceased, his intestine, liver and kidney are all found with the same drugs, which also connect the accused with the crime. Accused No.2 being the wife of the deceased was last seen together with the deceased by the complainant himself, who subsequently approached the complainant and blamed the deceased that he has left along with some two persons on the guise of purchasing bullocks, but did not return. It shows that accused No.2 was seen together with the deceased. The post-mortem examination report reveals the death was caused due to hemorrhage and compression of the neck, which reveals homicidal death of the deceased.
7
any ground made out by the petitioners to release them on bail by exercising power under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
gab
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused charged with murder having committed the crime by administering drugs and throttling the deceased.
Whether the circumstantial evidence including last seen evidence and forensic findings establishes sufficient ground to deny bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SURESH S/O. HUCHAPPA CHALAVANNAVAR
SMT. SAKKAVVA @ RENUKA @ REKA @ SAKKUBAI
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
K. NATARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
