Dismissed

Vinod S/O. Murari Savant @ Jamadar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2021CRL.P/100161/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, accused No.3, sought bail in a murder case where investigation was ongoing. The Court held that the petitioner was a possible conspirator and granting bail could allow witness tampering. Thus, bail was denied pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail application was dismissed. Petitioner remained in judicial custody pending further investigation and trial.

Vinod S/O. Murari Savant @ Jamadar Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100161/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VINOD S/O. MURARI SAVANT @ JAMADAR AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUNAVALLI VILLAGE, TQ.SAUNDATTI DIST. BELAGAVI-590103

¶8

...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK FOR SRI.SAI KIRAN B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SAUNDATTI POLICE STATION DIST. BELAGAVI REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH-580009

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY MS. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶13

THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING FOR GRANT OF REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IN SAUNDATTI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.278/2020 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHALE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 363 AND 120B OF IPC.

¶14

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of bail in Crime No.278/2020 registered by the Saundatti Police for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 363 and 120B of IPC.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint of one Goudappa Dyamappagol on 27.11.2020, alleging that his son Pancdhanagouda is missing from 26.11.2020, the police registered a case in Crime No.278/2020. As per the complainant himself, his wife Veena, sister-in-law accused No.2 – Vidya and his Children Panchanagouda (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) and Karuna, were residing together. On 26.11.2020, the complainant went to the land and his wife and children were in the house. Later at 7.00 pm in the evening, he came back from the field and given some groundnuts to his son to eat. Later at 7.30 pm, the deceased went out of the house for playing. Thereafter he did not return to

¶19

¶20

the house. All of them went in search of the deceased, but not found. Hence they lodged the missing complaint. During the course of investigation, the police arrested accused No.1 and it was revealed that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were having love affair with each other. Accused No.2 – Vidya is the sister-in-law of the complainant and maternal aunt of the deceased. The deceased and accused No.3 Vinod used to help accused Nos.1 and 2 for their love affair. Later accused No.2 felt the deceased might be a hurdle to their intimacy and hence hatched a conspiracy along with accused Nos. 3 and 4 to commit murder of the deceased. Accordingly, they committed his murder on 26.11.2020. On the voluntary statement of accused No.1, police also arrested accused No.3 – the petitioner herein. The investigation is still under progress. The petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial custody on 09.12.2020. He approached the Sessions Judge for grant of regular bail, which came to be rejected. Hence he is before this Court.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences. He has been falsely implicated in the case. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident

¶22

¶23

except the voluntary statement of accused No.1. The main accused are accused Nos. 1 and 2. This petitioner is nothing to do with the murder. The petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Hence prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶24

Per contra, learned HCGP objected to the bail petition and contended that this petitioner and accused No.4 have actively involved in the commission of murder of the deceased. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were having love affair with each other and accused No.3 along with the deceased used to help accused Nos. 1 and 2. Investigation is still under progress. The Investigating Officer is yet to collect some more material. At this stage, if bail is granted to the petitioner, the possibility of he tampering the witnesses and absconding from the case is not ruled out. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶25

Upon considering the materials on record, it goes to show that the complainant lodged a missing complaint before the police, but later, after arrest of accused Nos.1 and 2, the name of this petitioner has been entered on 09.12.2020. This petitioner was arrested on 09.12.2020. There are materials on record to show

¶26

¶27

that this petitioner was found taking the deceased along with him in his motorcycle. It is found from the materials on record that accused Nos.1 and 2 were exchanging some love letters and the deceased used to be a messenger. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the friends of accused No.1 and the presence of accused Nos.1 and 3 was seen with the deceased near the place of occurrence. Accused have committed murder of a young innocent boy aged about 9 years in order to help accused Nos. 1 and 2 to continue their love affair. Investigation is still under progress. At this stage, if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every possibility of he tampering the witnesses and absconding from the case. Therefore, pending investigation, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner.

¶28

Accordingly the petition is dismissed .

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

gab

Vinod S/O. Murari Savant @ Jamadar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod S/O. Murari Savant @ Jamadar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Aduri W/O Mulami Adivasi Rajput Vs the State of Karnataka

Ishwar S/O. Ramappa Kumbar Vs the State of Karnataka

Bande Navaz Rashmi S/O Vajirsab Rashmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Basappa Mahadevappa Kadlikoppa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sanni S/O Venkataranagayya Mothukuri @ Mothukuri Vs the State of Karnataka

Nana Kale S/O. Bhaskar Kale Vs the State of Karnataka