In this bail petition framed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka rejected the applicant's plea. The court held that involvement in a conspiracy to commit murder is a heinous offence, making it an unfit case for granting bail at this stage.
Bail prayer rejected; Criminal Petition 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 22nd DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101564/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. AMOL PRAKASH WADDAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. LABOUR SUPERVISOR, R/O. BENNADI VILLAGE, TAL. NIPPANI, DIST. BELAGAVI 590001.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI , ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY NIPPANI RURAL POLICE, NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD 580011.
.. RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH NIPPANI RURAL P.S. CRIME NO.94/2020 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 120B, 302 AND 201 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING
2
AT CHIKKODI ON ANY TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail in Crime No.94/2020 registered by Nippani Rural Police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 120B, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC on the suo moto case registered by Sri.B.S.Talawar, the Police SubInspector of Nippani Rural Police Station.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing on both sides and the written objections to the petition filed by the learned High Court Government Pleader.
3
requested accused No.1, who was the informant of the missing complaint, to come to the police station for the purpose of gathering information since they were unable to find any clue about his missing nephew. In spite of several requests, accused No.1 did not go to the police station. Therefore, the Investigating Officer went to the house of accused No.1 and started enquiring but accused No.1 did not give proper answer. He was taken to the police station and on enquiry, accused No.1 revealed about the commission of murder by himself in collusion with the other accused in the background of knocking over the family property as the deceased Vishal was said to have demanding share in the ancestral property. The investigation revealed on the voluntary statement of the accused that, the first accused contacted the petitioner herein-the second accused, who is his friend and informed that he was ready to spend money in order to eliminate his nephew Vishal. After some time, accused No.2 came back and informed accused No.1, he would engaged some person and demanded Rs.6,00,000/- to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly, accused No.1 paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner as an advance amount and thereafter on 29.07.2020, accused Nos.2 to 4 came
4
and hide in a shed which was by the side of the house of accused No.1 where the deceased had come in his car for washing the car. At that time, accused No.1 told Vishal to help him to put the fertilizer bag which was in the shed. When Vishal went inside the shed, all the accused persons caught hold of him and committed murder by strangulating his neck. Thereafter, they put the dead body of Vishal in a gunny bag which was lying there and accused Nos.2 to 4 took the dead body in the car belonging to the deceased and are said to have thrown the dead body in a Ghat in the Anadur village limits of Gaganabhavada taluka in Kolhapur District and parked the said car near Yamayi lake, Junoni village at Sollapur district. Thereafter, accused No.1 in order to suppress the murder, he went to the police station and lodged a missing complaint. Thereafter, all the other accused were arrested. The police also came to know that, a vehicle was found in the Maharashtra and after looking to the documents, the Maharashtra police contacted Nippani police and handed over the vehicle. Subsequently a unknown dead body was found and the police sent blood sample of accused No.1 along with the articles seized to the FSL examination. Investigation is under progress. The petitioner moved an
5
application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail before the Sessions Judge, Belagavi, which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
6
7
one of the main accused, who engaged the services of other accused for committing the murder of Vishal. The offence is a heinous one punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is the friend of accused No.1. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for exercising the power under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting bail.
The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Ckk para 1. kmv
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail in a murder case involving a conspiracy to kill for property disputes where investigation is ongoing.
Whether the heinous nature of the offence and the petitioner's role as a main accused precludes the exercise of bail power under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. AMOL PRAKASH WADDAR
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
K. NATARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
