Allowed

Shri.Vinod Savant Alias Jamadar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2021CRL.P/101265/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the petitioner, accused No.3 in a murder case, releasing him on bail with stringent conditions such as execution of personal bond and non-interference with witnesses, noting that no further investigation was contemplated.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to conditions including personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties, non-interference with witnesses, appearance for trial, and non-removal from jurisdiction w

Shri.Vinod Savant Alias Jamadar Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.101265/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. VINOD SAVANT@JAMADAR, S/O MURARI SAVANT@JAMADAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT SULAKATTI ONI, MUNAVALLI VILLAGE, TALUK: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN:591117. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SURAJ MUTNAL S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SAUNDATTI POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, PIN:580001. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. RAVINDRA NAIK, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION, ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SAVADATTI PS CRIME NO.278/2020 REGISTERED AGAINST HIM FOR THE OFFENCES

¶14

¶15

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 363, 120B R/W SEC.34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BELAGAVI.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This successive bail petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in Crime No.278/2020 registered by Savadatti Police for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 363 and 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶19

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Ravindra Naik for the respondent-State.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Goudappa Dyamappagol filed on 27.11.2020 alleging that his son Panchadhanagouda is missing from 26.11.2020, the police registered missing complaint. Later, the complainant himself, his wife and

¶21

¶22

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 p.m in the evening, he came back from the field and gave some groundnuts to his son to eat. Later at 7.00 p.m, the deceased went out of the house for playing. Thereafter, he did not return to the house. All of them went to search the deceased but did not find. After lodging of the complaint, during the investigation, the police arrested accused No.1 and under the voluntary statement, it was revealed that accused Nos.1 and 2 were having love affair between each other. The accused No.2-Vidya is the sister-in-law of the complainant and maternal aunt of the deceased. The deceased and the petitioner used to help accused Nos.1 and 2 for their love affair. Later, accused No.2 felt that the deceased might be hurdle to their intimacy and hence, hatched conspiracy along with petitioner and

¶23

¶24

accused No.4 to commit murder of the deceased. Accordingly, they committed murder of the deceased on 26.11.2020. It is upon the voluntary statement of accused No.1 that this petitioner was arrested and during the investigation, the petitioner moved bail petition before this court which came to be dismissed on 3.2.2021 in Crl.P.No.100161/2021. Now, the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.

¶25

The petitioner was arrested on 9.12.2020

¶26

and he is in Judicial Custody for nearly more than one and half years.

¶27

5. Upon hearing the arguments of learned

¶28

counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP and on perusal of the records, it shows that of course the entire case is based upon the circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses. The case of the petitioner was that accused No.1 gave voluntary statement and based upon his voluntary statement that

¶29

¶30

this petitioner is arrested. As per the statement of learned HCGP, the police recovered motorcycle, mobile phone and other articles at the instance of accused No.1. It is also revealed from the Call Detail Records that the petitioner was connected with the crime. The co-accused person/accused No.4 has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.101181/2021 dated 12.7.2021. This court also granted bail to accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.100231/2021 dated 4.2.2021. The case is based upon the circumstantial evidence especially the petitioner and the deceased was seen together along with accused No.1 while proceeding in the motorcycle and thereafter, the deceased was found dead. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The presence of the petitioner may not be required for any further investigation except for trial. The co-accused persons having similar allegations have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, I am of the view that by imposing

¶31

¶32

stringent conditions, if the petitioner/accused No.3 is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The criminal petition is allowed .

¶35

The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.3 on bail in Crime No.278/2020 registered by Savadatti Police for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 363 and 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:-

¶36

i) Petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶37

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶38

iii) Petitioner shall not indulge himself in similar offences strictly;

¶39

¶40

iv) Petitioner shall take the trial without causing any delay; and

¶41

v) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶42

If any of the conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

cbc

Shri.Vinod Savant Alias Jamadar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Vinod Savant Alias Jamadar 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

Sri Swaroop Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Govindappa Vs State of Karnataka by

Vaseem Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesh D v Vs the State of Karnataka

Manikanta S/O Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Gopa Ram @ Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka