Dismissed

Vinay Rajashekharappa Kulkarni v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2021CRL.P/101595/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka heard a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by an accused facing murder charges under Section 302 IPC. The court analyzed the risk of witness tampering, the gravity of the offence, and the petitioner's political influence while emphasizing that the investigation was ongoing and no sufficient grounds existed to grant bail at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed; petitioner continues to remain in judicial custody.

Vinay Rajashekharappa Kulkarni Vs Central… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF JANUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101595/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI VINAY RAJASHEKHARAPPA KULKARNI, S/O. RAJASHEKHARAPPA KULAKARNI, AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. BARAKOTRI, SHIVAGIRI, DHARWAD-580 007.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI BAHUBALI A. DANAWADE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032,

¶12

¶13

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 001.

¶16

. .. RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI S.V.RAJU, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND SRI M.B.KANAVI FOR RESPONDENT-CBI)

¶18

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. AND PRAYED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER HEREIN ON BAIL, IN THE MATTER BEARING NO.RC17(S)/2019/CBI/ACB/BLR (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.135/2016 OF SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD) PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, DHARWAD WHEREIN, THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 120B, 201 AND 302 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Petitioner herein/accused No.15 filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for seeking regular bail for the case registered by the Dharwad Sub-urban Police Station in Crime No.135/2016 presently pending in Sessions Case No.50/2017 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad and later re-registration of FIR by the respondent/CBI on 24.09.2019 it has been numbered as RC17(S)2019/CBI/ACB/BLR.

¶24

Heard the arguments of learned Senior counsel Sri.Shashikiran Shetty, for petitioner/accused No.15 and learned Additional Solicitor General Sri S.V.Raju for the respondent-CBI.

¶25

The case of prosecution in brief is that on 15.06.2016 a complaint came to be filed by one Mallavva who is wife of Yogeshgouda Goudar (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) before the Sub-urban Police Station, Dharwad alleging that her husband Sri Yogeshgouda Goudar has been murdered by unknown persons. Based upon the said complaint, a Crime No.135/2016 has been registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against the unknown persons. During the investigation, it has

¶26

¶27

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶28

revealed that accused Nos.1 to 6 said to be surrendered before the police and after the investigation the jurisdictional police filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6 on 09.09.2016. Further case of the prosecution is that later in the year 2017, the mother of the deceased Smt.Tungamma and the bother of deceased Sri Gurunathgouda said to be filed writ petitions before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.58183-184/2017 (GM-RES) praying this Court for directing the respondent-CBI to takeover the investigation of this case and include this petitioner and other persons as accused persons, which came to be dismissed on 01.03.2019. Subsequently, the mother and brother of the deceased approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) Nos.5760-5761/2019, which also came to be dismissed on 22.07.2019.

¶29

Subsequently, the trial Court said to be proceeded with the trial by examining 61 witnesses and posted the case for recording of statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. At this juncture, the younger brother of deceased said to be filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for impleading the present petitioner as additional accused, which came to be dismissed. In the

¶30

¶31

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶32

meanwhile, on 06.09.2019, the State Government said to be handed over the investigation to the CBI and accordingly on 24.09.2019, the respondent-CBI registered a F.I.R. in RC No.17(S)/2019CBI/ACB/BLR against accused Nos.1 to 6 and also unknown other persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 120(B) and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC and on 23.09.2019, the Ministry of Personal and Public Grievances and Pension issued a notification extending the powers to conduct the further investigation in Crime No.135/2016 registered by the Sub-Urban Police, Dharwad. The CBI during further investigation arrested the accused Nos.7 to 14 and they have been remanded to judicial custody. After that, the accused No.7 has been granted bail by the trial Court. Subsequently, the CBI said to be filed additional charge sheet before the trial Court on 20.05.2020 and subsequently the CBI issued notice to this petitioner summoning him to appear for the purpose of interrogation on 05.11.2020 and during the interrogation said to be found this petitioner is also involved in commission of offence and arrested him later produced before the jurisdictional Special Court (CBI) and in turn, he has been remanded Judicial Custody, he has approached the Sessions Judge

¶33

¶34

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶35

(Special Court) for granting of bail by filing petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., which came to be rejected on 14.12.2020. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Shashikiran Shetty has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged. He has been falsely implicated by the respondent-CBI police. Even though, absolutely there is no material placed on record to connect this petitioner with the crime. Previously the police arrested the accused Nos.1 to 6 and filed charge sheet against them, they were also granted bail by the Sessions Judge. The State has filed application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail, which came to be rejected by this Court and even a police official also obtained anticipatory bail from this Court, who said to be assisted the accused person. After completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, trial was commenced, most of the witnesses turned hostile. At the stage of final hearing, the brother and mother of the deceased filed writ petition before this Court for refer the matter to the CBI for investigation of the matter, which came to be dismissed and they have also challenged the said order of this Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was also

¶37

¶38

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶39

dismissed. Thereby, the contention raised by the brother and mother of deceased making false allegations against this petitioner has been negatived by this Court which was attained finality. Subsequently, the brother of the deceased also filed an application before the Sessions Judge under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning this petitioner as additional accused, which was also came to be rejected, no appeal has been filed before the appellate Court, which is also ended finality. Such being the case, the brother of the deceased moved an application before the Government, in view of change of the Government, the sanction was accorded for further investigation has been given to the CBI and after due investigation CBI arrested the accused Nos.7 to 14 and after completion of the investigation, they filed additional charge sheet.

¶40

The learned counsel further contended that on perusal of the entire additional charge sheet filed by the CBI, nowhere the name of this petitioner mentioned. Absolutely there is no material to connect the present petitioner with the crime and because of political rivalry the accused has been arrested by the CBI. The alleged conspiracy and motive as alleged by the prosecution has been shown in the additional charge sheet, nowhere the name of

¶41

¶42

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶43

petitioner found he has conspiracy with other accused for committing the murder prior to the incident. If at all allegations of meeting the accused No.1 by this petitioner as subsequent to the incident may not be considered as conspiracy to commit the murder. He further contended that the CBI mentioned the allegations against the accused Nos.7 to 14 in the additional charge sheet, it is nothing but averments made by the brother of the deceased in the petition and there is no separate witnesses examined by the CBI except the witnesses who were already examined by the police and also by the CBI while filing of additional charge sheet. The case is politically motivated against the petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court also after considering the material produced by the brother of deceased, SLP came to be dismissed. The allegation made by the CBI against the petitioner is identical one.

¶44

The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the deceased was a Zilla Panchayat member, who is a rowdy-sheeter , there were 25 criminal cases registered against him in various Police Stations and he is an accused of three murder cases and he being a rowdy-sheeter there may be common enemies to him,

¶45

¶46

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶47

somebody might have committed murder. Absolutely, there is no motive against this petitioner to show there was an altercation between this accused and deceased as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Petitioner is in judicial custody for almost 72 days. There is no new material collected by the CBI against this petitioner except the earlier evidences and documents including CCTV footages which were seized by the police. Apart from that, absolutely there is no eyewitness to the incident. Most of the eyewitnesses examined before the trial Court and they turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, considering this aspect the petitioner is entitled for bail. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶48

8. Per Contra , the learned Additional Solicitor General Sri S.V.Raju, appeared through video conferencing and argued by filing the objections to bail petition and contended that after registering the case, when the CBI took up the investigation and it was the evidence were collected by the CBI that there was altercation between the accused and the deceased in the Zilla Panchayat on 22.04.2016 and thereafter the present petitioner met accused No.1

¶49

¶50

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶51

and hatched conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased. Infact accused Nos.8 to 14 were the real assailants, they were made an attempt to commit murder of deceased on 07.06.2016. But it was unsuccessful and later on the 15.06.2016 accused Nos.8 to 14 were came to the spot and committed the murder, they are the real assailants, but not accused Nos.1 to 6, who are not actually assaulted the deceased. But after committing the murder of deceased, the accused No.1 went to Bengaluru to met the present petitioner/accused No.15 by traveling in a private taxi and the accused/present petitioner was obtained a room at Mourya Hotel and after meeting the present petitioner, very next day the accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 6 were surrendered before the police. Infact they mislead the police and they were made to investigation to go on wrong path. The CCTV footage recovered by the police during the investigation clearly reveals the presence of the accused Nos.8 to 14 on the spot, infact prior to the commission of murder, the accused Nos.8 to 14 were along with the accused, they went to Dandeli they were stayed in the resort, thereafter they came to Dharwad and stayed in a Hotel. All these arrangements have made by this present petitioner through his friend and one

¶52

¶53

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶54

Rupendra who is the owner of resort of Dhandeli, who was given a statement before the CBI that accused Nos.8 to 14 were stayed in the resort and they have not paid any money and the arrangements were made by the accused.

¶55

The learned ASG further contended that eyewitnesses were though turned hostile, they are all eyewitnesses namely Dattatreya, Anand, Vinayak, Mohan and Laxmi they were all present in jim as per the CCTV footage. But they have been tampered by this petitioner by taking them to a hotel. There were three advocates also arranged for tutoring them to give false evidence. The said witnesses turned hostile because of tampering of the witnesses, that apart, the accused/this petitioner also threatened the brother of deceased for settling the case. A criminal case also registered against the petitioner for threatening the witnesses and cognizance taken and further contended that the accused Nos.1 to 6 made a false information to the police while surrendering themselves that they have also assaulted the deceased and committed the murder on the background of planned conspiracy, but infact the owner of the land one Nagaraj given a statement stating that there is no land deal between the accused Nos.1 to 6 and him. But the petitioner

¶56

¶57

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶58

said to have paid `6,00,000/- to the accused No.1 to create a false

¶59

motive of land dealing. There is material collected by the CBI in respect of call list and call CDRs to connect this accused with the crime. Where the accused continuously had conversation with the accused No.1, almost 57 calls made through his phone and 54 times called through his wife’s phone and almost four and half moths they are in contact, but all of a sudden near the time of incident they stopped and later the accused No.1 went to Bengaluru and met this present petition.

¶60

The learned Additional Solicitor General further contended that the petitioner being a sitting MLA and Minister who was provided with the Official quarters, no necessity for him to go and stay in Mourya Hotel between 08.06.2016 to 20.06.2016. The petitioner also made a false tour program to go to Delhi to attend a mining meeting a day prior to the incident. Infact there is no such meeting was convened at Delhi. In order to attend the said meeting he has falsely purchased a flight ticket in order to claim a false alibi. The CBI recorded the statements of witnesses and collected huge materials against the petitioner in order to connect this petitioner with the crime and conspiracy with the accused No.1 and

¶61

¶62

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶63

destruction of evidence. There are altercations between the present petitioner and deceased in the Zilla Panchayat. The presence of this petitioner and the deceased has been proved by mobile tower location. Meeting of accused No.1 with accused No.15 prior to the incident also collected by the CBI to show he is having nexus with the accused No.1. The accused Nos.7 to 14 have visited the Dharwad on 12.06.2016 prior to the incident with no purpose. The three advocates who tutored the eyewitnesses for making them as hostile and giving false evidence. They have been given statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate. They are clearly admitted at the instance of this petitioner and presence of this petitioner they made the eyewitnesses to turn hostile. The CCTV footages were confronted to the witnesses, which clearly goes to show the presence of the eyewitnesses near the spot and because of tampering of the witnesses by the petitioner, they are all turned hostile. Therefore, the learned Additional Solicitor General contended that there is sufficient material collected by the CBI, which was available before the police, in order to file additional charge sheet against this petitioner and if the petitioner granted bail, there is every possibility of tampering of the prosecution

¶64

¶65

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶66

witnesses and destruction of the evidence cannot be ruled out. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶67

Having heard the arguments of learned Senior counsel for petitioner as well as learned Additional Solicitor General and perused the material on record placed by the petitioner as well as the CBI, which has been collected during further investigation and the statements recorded by the Investigation Officer, including some of the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate, which were sent to this Court in a sealed cover. Some of the statements of witnesses are not opened as the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of these witnesses are available. On perusal of the material placed on record, which shows that on 15.06.2016 one-Yogeshgouda Goudar has been murdered by unknown miscreants near his jim at Saptapur Dharwad. A complaint came to be lodged by the wife of deceased to the police. The same was registered as Crime No.135/2016 by the Sub-urban Police, Dharwad for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against unknown persons. It is also not in dispute that during the investigation, the jurisdictional police have visited spot and conducted the formal investigation. The

¶68

¶69

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶70

documents also reveals that on the next day of incident, the accused Nos.1 to 5 were came and surrendered before the Police and they have produced before the court, after that, they have remanded to Judicial Custody. After completion of the investigation, the jurisdictional police filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 6 on 09.09.2016. It is also not in dispute that after committal of the case, which was numbered as S.C.No.50/2017 and in the trial 61 witnesses were examined, some of the witnesses were turned hostile and the matter was posted for recording of statements of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Further, the material reveals the brother and mother of deceased have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition Nos.58183184/2017 seeking mandamus direction to refer further investigation to the CBI, which came to be dismissed.

¶71

It is also not in dispute that the brother and mother of deceased also approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing S.L.P. (Crl) Nos.5760-61/2019, which also dismissed and attained the finality. It is also not in dispute while dismissing the writ petitions by this Court, this Court has observed that the prosecution or the petitioner i.e., brother of the deceased having right to file

¶72

¶73

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶74

application through the prosecutor can be invoked Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the present petitioner as additional accused and the said observations has not been disturbed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is also not in dispute that the brother of deceased namely-Gurunathgouda Goudar approached through Public Prosecutor before the Special Court and filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., which came to be rejected after issuing notice to the present petitioner/accused. Up course the same was not challenged by the brother or mother of deceased. Further, the material reveals, the brother of deceased, Gurunathgouda Goudar filed a representation to the Chief Minister and requested the State Government to refer the matter for further investigation to the CBI. But the State Government has not considered his request. Subsequently, in view of change of Government and ruling party, the application filed by the brother of deceased has been considered by the present Government and referred for further investigation of the matter to the CBI. Admittedly, the CBI registered a case in RC17(S)2019/CBI/ACB/BLR against the accused Nos.1 to 6 and also unknown persons for the said offences including offences under Sections 120B and 302 of IPC. It is also not in dispute that the CBI

¶75

¶76

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶77

subsequently arrested the accused Nos.7 to 14 and after concluding the investigation, they have filed additional charge sheet on 20.05.2020 before the Special Court. During pendency of the said case, the petitioner has been summoned by the CBI on 05.11.2020 for the purpose of interrogation. On the day after interrogating with the accused by the CBI, they have arrested this accused and produced before the Special Court and thereafter Court remanded him to judicial custody. He also moved two bail applications before the Special Court, which were withdrawn and subsequently, he made another bail application, which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶78

I have already narrated entire arguments addressed by both the counsels and verified the investigation materials collected by the CBI, which were produced by the learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner along with earlier charge sheet and additional charge sheet filed by the CBI. The learned Senior Counsel has further contended by way of reply that, CW.22 to 26 they are alleged eyewitnesses to the incident, the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer during first investigation and shown them as CW.22 to 26 and the same witnesses have been examined by

¶79

¶80

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶81

the CBI during further investigation and shown them as CW.1 to 5 and those witnesses were already turned hostile, they have not supported the prosecution case. Therefore their statements cannot be relied at this stage. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that wife of the deceased also given further statement before the CBI, where she has not revealed anything about the enmity between her husband and petitioner and she stated relationship was very good. Therefore, at this stage, there is no material placed on record to connect the accused with this crime regarding motive.

¶82

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the statement of brother of deceased one-Gurunathgouda Goudar is also recorded, but there is no new material in his statement to connect the accused with the crime and even otherwise after filing of additional charge sheet, there is no material collected by the Investigating Officer for connecting this petitioner/accused with the crime. Therefore, he has contended that the Court can grant bail to the present petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court regarding Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement , reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1549 , wherein it is held that the

¶83

¶84

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶85

Court can only verify the documents and consider the same for the purpose of considering the bail application and should not give any finding on them. I am fully aware about the legal principles laid down in respect of considering the bail application, which is a discretionary relief, how to consider the bail application by the Court while considering the bail application of the accused persons. It is well settled principle in a catena of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court that an every accused should be considered as an innocent of the alleged offences until the guilt is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. However, it is only after filing of the charge sheet and conclusion of trial. But while considering the bail application, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the guidelines, which was followed by the Courts in the country regarding granting and rejection of bail.

¶86

In a reported case, in the case of State of U.P. Through

¶87

CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 , wherein it was held, while considering the bail application Court required to consider, ( i ) whether there is any prima-facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; ( ii ) nature and gravity of the charge; ( iii ) severity of the

¶88

¶89

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶90

punishment in the event of conviction; ( iv ) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail ; ( v ) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; ( iv ) likelihood of the offence being repeated ; ( vii ) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and ( viii ) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. Based upon the legal principles and this Court also aware of that even there is a prima - facie material placed on record itself is not a ground to reject the bail petition. However before considering the material placed in given case it has to be mentioned that it is well settled that each case depends upon its own merits, facts and circumstances of that case. Normally in a criminal jurisprudence there is no straight jacket formula shall be followed and by keeping all the principles in mind regarding the bail, now coming to the arguments addressed by learned Additional Solicitor General in order to connect this petitioner with the crime. The learned ASG contended that regarding motive aspect that there was an altercation between this petitioner and the deceased on 22.04.2016 in the Zilla Panchayat Office in a meeting, which is chaired by the present petitioner/accused as a District Incharge Minister and the deceased

¶91

¶92

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶93

being a Member of Zilla Panchayat and the verbal altercation has been occurred which results to the personal vengeance may be political rivalry between parties. Further case of the CBI is that this petitioner in order to take revenge against the deceased contacted the accused No.1- Basavaraj Shivappa Muttagi and hatched conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased.

¶94

In order to protect the interest of prosecution, names of witnesses are not disclosed in this order and also in the interest of investigation which is under progress. The statement of some of the witnesses, the call list of the mobile phone of this petitioner and accused No.1-Basavaraj Muttagi also recorded and CDRs which were produced by the CBI, on perusal of the same, which shows the accused No.1 had frequently contacted with this petitioner prior to the incident and wife of the accused phone call also produced which shows the accused said to be frequently in touch with accused No.1 and met at Bengaluru. There is other call list also produced before the Court which reveals the accused No.1 in contact with the other accused prior to the alleged offence of murder of deceased. Admittedly, as argued by the learned ASG for CBI there is no subsequent contact between this petitioner and accused No.1 from

¶95

¶96

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶97

03.06.2016 onwards and from the statement of one of the witnesses, who is a taxi driver, which reveals that immediately after committing the murder of deceased, the accused No.1-Basavaraj Muttagi traveled in a private taxi from Chitradurga to Bengaluru and met the present petitioner on road while sitting in a car at Sadashiv Nagar.

¶98

The some of witnesses also stated who is closed relative of the petitioner/accused shows on the day this petitioner met accused No.1 and some of the witnesses also stated, at the instance of this petitioner that they have given `6,00,000/- to the 1^st accused and the further investigation of the CBI also reveals accused Nos.8 to 14 were came from Bengaluru and stayed in a resort room at Dandeli. Where the arrangements were made by this petitioner by requesting the owner of the resort who is also a former Government employee having contact with this petitioner in his Milk Dairy. He has also given statement before the CBI regarding the presence of accused Nos.8 to 14 and stayed at Dandeli. Thereafter, the statements of other witnesses also reveal some of accused persons were staying in a Hotel at Dharwad and they brought two persons along with them from Bengaluru for

¶99

¶100

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶101

assaulting the deceased. But they reluctant to assault and send back them by paying `500/-. Some of the witnesses were given statements before the CBI under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. witnessing the incident. It is also found in record that the previous Investigating Officer of jurisdictional police station, who was granted anticipatory bail by this Court, who was not conducted investigation properly. It is seen from the records, accused No.1 after meeting this petitioner, very next day, he along with accused Nos.2 to 5 surrendered before the police and gave a false motive for killing the deceased by admitting guilt. Based upon the voluntary statements and confession statements of accused Nos.1 to 5, the police proceeded to file charge sheet and subsequently, it is unearthed by the CBI that accused No.1 created a false or bogus motive with the land deal with of one Nagaraj and himself that was the cause for the murder and from the statements of witnesses available on record show that the accused Nos.1 to 5 misdirected the police and mislead the police and thereby the jurisdictional police not properly investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the accused

¶102

¶103

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶104

Nos.1 to 6, the accused Nos.2 to 5 were not at all the real assailants.

¶105

In the further investigation of the CBI, it reveals, accused No.6 who was given information to the other accused infact the learned ASG has stated the main assailants are accused Nos.8 to 14, but not accused Nos.2 to 5 who were surrendered before the police. Before filing of the additional charge sheet by the CBI police, arrested accused Nos.8 to 14, now they are judicial custody. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, up course all the witnesses are circumstantial witnesses required to prove before the Court of law during the trial. On looking to the statements of witnesses regarding payment of `6,00,000/- to one of the witnesses who is land broker by the accused No.1 to create a false motive of land deal has been shown in the investigation by the CBI. There is strong motive to show this petitioner had altercation with the deceased in the Zilla Panchayat meeting and also he made threat to petitioner to not to contest elections. There is material available on record to show letter received by the deceased prior to the incident that this petitioner is trying to commit murder, though the deceased ignored the same. Further documents goes to show that

¶106

¶107

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶108

on the date of incident, the accused pleaded alibi that he was in Delhi, up course the CBI collected a material to show as on 12.06.2016 a tour programme mentioned by the petitioner there was no official meeting of Mines and Geology Department at Delhi, it shows the petitioner created a false tour programme in order to leave Bengaluru, but infact the petitioner left Bengaluru on 12.06.2016 and returned very next day. As on the date of incident, he was at Bengaluru, there is material produced on record by the CBI to show the petitioner though provided with the official quarters by the Government, he has stayed in a rented room in Hotel Mourya at Bengaluru till 20.06.2016. The statement of witnesses and material collected also reveal that the petitioner frequently met the accused No.1 even after the commission of murder. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 5 made to surrender before the police to show themselves committed the murder of Yogeshgouda in order to mislead the police and to make police to divert the investigation towards the main accused. The entire material on record, of course circumstances, including the phones call details and CDRs, mobile tower locations show the accused No.1 and petitioner were in one place. All these materials clearly indicates the involvement of this

¶109

¶110

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶111

petitioner in the commission of crime by hatching conspiracy in committing the murder of the deceased-Yogeshgouda on the background of enmity and altercation between them in Zilla Panchayat meeting held. The CBI recorded almost 19 witnesses including some of the witnesses already recorded by the police and CBI in the additional charge sheet, but some more statements are available to connect the accused with the crime. Of course, in the additional charge sheet, though recorded the statement of wife of the deceased and brother of the deceased but on that meager statements not arrested the petitioner, but after collecting additional material they arrested the petitioner/accused, which goes to show that there is sufficient material to connect the accused with the commission of murder of deceased-Yogeshgouda on 15.06.2016.

¶112

As already held above, merely the prima-facie case made out itself is not a ground to reject the bail application of the petitioner. The Court requires verify the other circumstances in order to consider the bail application while allowing or rejecting. On perusal of the entire evidence and the facts of the case, making the some of the witnesses as hostile, the CBI subsequently recorded

¶113

¶114

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶115

the statements of both witnesses and statements of some of the advocates, who also given statements before the CBI as well as statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that meeting of the accused with the witnesses and their advocates, it reveals the petitioner tampered the witnesses of the prosecution, even though, his name was not in earlier FIR or charge sheet but he was actively participated in tampering the witnesses. He has paid huge sum of `6,00,000/- to the witnesses for making them hostile. It is also from the further investigation that those witnesses were taken to the Hotels and kept there and thereafter they brought to the Court and made to turn hostile and can give evidence infavour of the prosecution. Considering this aspect, if this petitioner granted bail, even if, there is prima-facie material, definitely he would tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the prosecution case. The petitioner being a former MLA and former Minister of the State, made to avoid and influenced the local police being a District Incharge Minister and taken care of the police by paying money to the Investigating Officer that made to a disasters in filing a faulty charge sheet by the jurisdictional police.

¶116

¶117

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶118

It is further revealed from documents that the police constable also given a statement in regard to the payment of `2,00,000/- to Investigating Officer for the purpose of not conducting any proper investigation. Though, the learned ASG for CBI has contended that police before recovering the weapons from the spot they recovered from the other accused obtained from a scrap vender and smeared the blood of the deceased on the weapon. But they are all looked into during the trial. Considering the background of the petitioner being the politically influenced person, he tried to manage the State Government then ruling party and avoid for referring the matter to the CBI. Fortunately, on the change of Government and ruling party, the matter has been referred to the CBI otherwise, the truth might have buried without unearthed. On the looking to the entire material and background of the accused, there is every possibility of tampering of witnesses and theretening of witnesses are not ruled out. The alleged offences are punishable with death and punishable with life imprisonment and are heinous one. The petitioner being a political leader-MLA and Minister should be a role model to the District and State in helping

¶119

¶120

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶121

the people and developing the State, instead he has involved in a such a heinous crime.

¶122

However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that there are so many cases registered against the deceasedYogeshgouda almost 25 cases out of them, 3 murder cases registered against him. He is a rowdy-sheeter, it may be true he is a rowdy-sheeter however he is one of the political rivalry to the petitioner and a Zilla Panchayat Member whether a rowdy or a normal person or good person, no person has right to kill anybody except the Court to commit to death of an accused after due process of law by proving the guilt of the accused by awarding the death sentence and no person is right to kill any person. Though, the petitioner is having right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But the deceased and other persons including all beings are also entitled to live in the society peacefully their rights also to be protected. Therefore, no one has given power to kill any person in the democratic set up country like India. Considering this aspect, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find any sufficient ground to grant bail to the present petitioner/accused No.15 at this stage.

¶123

¶124

Crl.P.No.101595/2020

¶125

That apart the investigation is still progress, the CBI yet to record the statements of some of the witnesses and file the charge sheet. Merely the petitioner is in judicial custody for 72 days that itself is not a ground to grant bail at this stage. In view of the interest of further investigation and to give all support to the Investigating Officer for independent investigation without being influenced by any person to file charge sheet. It may be true they might have not mentioned the name of this fellow in the additional charge sheet but they have not precluded from collecting additional fresh material and to file additional charge sheet as per Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, at this stage in the interest of investigation, I do not find any good ground to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :

¶126

ORDER

¶127

Petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.15 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

¶128

Sd/JUDGE

¶129

CKK

Vinay Rajashekharappa Kulkarni v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Rajashekharappa Kulkarni v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mallikarjuna S/O. Ramu Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Venakatesh Nayak S/O Durgya Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraj S/O Rudrappa Dundanatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Devya S/O Chudya Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka by Its

Hanamantha S/O Yankappa Jarakunti Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Nagappa S/O. Govind Sanadi Vs the State of Karnataka