Allowed

Lokesha P Alias Lokesha Naik Alias Poojari Lakshmi Naik S/O Pathya Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Mar 2021CRL.P/100510/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding murder and conspiracy charges, the High Court of Karnataka granted bail, holding that detention would amount to pretrial punishment since investigation is completed and apprehensions can be met via conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties and conditions against committing offences or tampering with witnesses.

Lokesha P Alias Lokesha Naik Alias Poojari… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100510/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

LOKESHA P. @ LOKESH NAIK @ PUJARI LAKYA NAIK, S/O.PATYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O.NO.21, 3^RD CROSS, AREHALLI, SUBRAMANYAURA, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 061, ALSO RESIDENT OF MADLAGERE THANDA, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT, TQ-HARAPPANA HALI, DIST-BALLARI.

¶8

…….. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI: S.S.YADRAMI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH -580 011. …… RESPONDENT (BY SRI: RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ORDER TO RELEASE THE

¶13

¶14

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.8/2021 (HALAVAGILU P.S. CRIME NO.95/2020) FOR THE ALELGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 120B, 302 AND 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION AND C.J.M., HARAPANAHALLI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner/accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.95/2020 registered by Halavagilu Police Station, Ballari district for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for the sake of brevity) on the basis of first information lodged by the informant-Anand Naik.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that, the informantAnand Naik lodged the first information against accused Nos.1, 2 and other unknown persons on 14.10.2020 stating that his elder sister-Samakibai married to one-Kotresh Naik about 14 years back. Within 6 months after the marriage, she came back to her parental house and was residing with the informant. Accused No.1-Lokesh Naik developed intimacy

¶19

¶20

with her and had promised to marry her, as such, they were having physical relationship. Accused No.1 collected Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- from Samakibai. Dugya Naik who is the relative of accused No.1 had borrowed Rs.20,000/from Samakibai, but had not returned the said amount. It is stated on 13.10.2020, Samakibai informed the informant that Dugya Naik had called her to Harappanahalli promising to repay the amount which was taken from her. The informant dropped her to Madlagere village and from there she went towards Harappanahalli in a tempo Samakibai had not returned to village on that day. The informant stated that on 14.10.2020 at 2.30 p.m. Mallesh Naik showed a photo in the WhatsApp and stated that a lady was murdered near Vattlahalli and on seeing the photograph, the informant suspected that the dead body is that of his sister-Samakibai and went to Vattlahalli village and thereafter, he visited-C.G. Hospital at Davanagere, where the dead body was kept. He suspected that accused No.1 and Dugya Naik might have caused her death, along with others, by assaulting her with sharp edged weapons and thrown her dead body with an intention to cause disappearance of the evidence of

¶21

¶22

commission of the offence. Therefore, he requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action against the accused. Accordingly, the police registered the case and took up investigation. It is stated that the investigation is already completed and charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 for the above said offences.

¶23

Heard Sri S.S.Yadrami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh B. Chigari the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶25

the present petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter only on the basis of the suspicion expressed by the informant. It is alleged that there was conspiracy between accused Nos.1, 3 and 4, but the call details record collected by the Investigating Officer discloses that from 20.09.2020 till 14.10.2020, there were no conversation between accused Nos.1 and 3. It is stated that the voluntary statement of accused No.3 is recorded, who

¶26

¶27

categorically states regarding commission of the offence by himself. There is casual reference to the present petitioner in the said voluntary statement of accused No.3. No incriminating materials were seized at the instance of the petitioner. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. No overt act is alleged against the present petitioner. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is already filed. Petitioner was apprehended on 16.10.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. While filing the charge sheet, the offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC was included and accused No.2 is dropped which filing the charge sheet. Accused No.3 is still in judicial custody. Accused No.4 is already enlarged on bail as per the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Detention of the petitioner in custody is not required for any other purposes, except to ensure his presence before the Trial Court. Petitioner is the permanent resident of Arehalli village and he is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶28

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious

¶29

¶30

allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. Petitioner is the main accused, who criminally conspired to cause the death of deceased. He was having strong motive to commit the offence. Offence in question is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The Investigating Officer collected strong prima-facie materials regarding the role played by the present petitioner in the commission of offence. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is:

¶32

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

¶33

for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶34

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶35

R E A S O N S

¶36

The alleged offences against the accused are of serious nature. As per the charge sheet submitted by the

¶37

¶38

Investigating Officer, accused No.1 by promising the deceased to marry had received Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- from her. It is stated that accused No.3 is the brother of accused No.1 and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 criminally conspired to eliminate the deceased and in furtherance of such criminal conspiracy, accused No.3 caused the death of the deceased by stabbing with knife, thrown her dead body under a bridge near Daddahalla, and in order to destroy the evidence, poured the petrol on the dead body and lit fire. It is stated that accused No.3 was apprehended and his voluntary statement was recorded. It is also stated that incriminating materials were recovered at the instance of accused No.3. The allegations made against the present petitioner is with regard to the criminal conspiracy plotted with accused Nos.3 and 4. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Under such circumstances, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pretrial punishment. The apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or he may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses could be taken care by imposing suitable conditions. Hence, I answer

¶39

¶40

the above point in the ‘Affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is allowed.

¶43

The petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.95/2020 of

¶44

Halavagilu Police Station is ordered to be enlarged on bail,

¶45

subject to following conditions:

¶46

i. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶47

ii. He shall not commit similar offences.

¶48

iii. He shall not threaten or tamper prosecution witnesses.

¶49

iv. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the Court as and when required.

¶50

It is needless to state that, in case, if the petitioner

¶51

violates any of the conditions imposed on him, the

¶52

prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

ckk

Lokesha P Alias Lokesha Naik Alias Poojari Lakshmi Naik S/O Pathya Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesha P Alias Lokesha Naik Alias Poojari Lakshmi Naik S/O Pathya Naik 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju S/O Yallappa Doddamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr.Vianayaka Prasanna S/O Late Surya Naayana Vs the State

K. Narayana Reddy S/O K Hanumantha Reddy Vs the State by Police Inspector

Shree Sainath Traders, Vs the State of Karnataka

R. Pakeerappa S/O R. Ramappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Renuka W/O Nilakantappa Kale Alias Chalawadi Vs the State of Karnataka