Dismissed

Kumar S/O Siddappa Swateppagol @ Godchi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2021CRL.P/101633/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court denied regular bail to a petitioner accused of murder and attempted kidnapping in a conspiracy case. The Court held that serious allegations involving death and criminal conspiracy made the case unfit for bail.

What did the court decide?

The petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; the petitioner remains in custody.

Kumar S/O Siddappa Swateppagol @ Godchi Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101633/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KUMAR S/O. SIDDAPPA SWATEPPAGOL @ GODHI, AGE-22 YEARS, OCC-COOLIE, R/O.BENACHINAMARDI VILLAGE, GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT- 591 301.

¶8

…….. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI: S.M.MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MURGOD POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 001.

¶12

…… RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI: RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 BY GRANTING HIM REGULAR BAIL UNDER SECTION 493 OF CR.P.C. IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.1260/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JMFC COURT, SAUNDATTI ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.186/2020 OF THE MURAGOD POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI DISTRICT FOR THE

¶15

¶16

COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 364, 302 AND 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner/accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.186/2020 of Muragod Police initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 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-Prakash Chikkannavar.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that, the informant lodged the first information against unknown persons stating that since 11.08.2020 his brother-Devendra was found missing. He could not get any information about him, in spite of due search. In fact, the wife of Devendra informed the complainant that her husband is missing since 5 O’ clock in the evening. Since he could not be traced, the brother of Devendra filed a missing complaint with Muragod Police on 13.08.2020. The police registered the case in Crime

¶21

¶22

No.185/2020 and took up investigation. On 14.08.2020 at 1.15 p.m., the police informed the informant that they could

¶23

trace the dead body of a person aged 35 years in Ghataprabha left bank canal in Shirol village Mudhol Taluka. Immediately, the informant went to the Mudhol Police Station and identified the dead body through the photo and the clothes. Thereafter, he went to Mudhol Government Hospital and identified the dead body. Therefore, he requested the police to register a case and to initiate legal action against the unknown persons, who are responsible for causing the death of his brother-Devendra. The police registered the case initially for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and took up investigation. It is stated that the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶24

Heard Sri S.M.Muchandi, learned counsel for the

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. As per the case made out by the prosecution, the deceased was found missing on 11.08.2020, but the first information was lodged on 13.08.2020. The present petitioner was apprehended on 17.08.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. The prosecution is relying on the so-called voluntary statement of accused No.1 and the statement of CW-25, who stated that he had last seen the deceased in the company of accused Nos.1 to 3. No test identification parade was conducted and there is absolutely nothing to connect the present petitioner to the offence in question. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pretrial punishment. Petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed 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 having committed the offence. The present petitioner is the main accused, who assaulted the deceased on his head with iron rod and caused his death while taking him in the goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-49/4810. Accused No.1 is the wife of the deceased, who was having illicit relationship with the present petitioner/accused No.2 and thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 have hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased and therefore, they brought the goods vehicle along with accused No.3 and managed to secure the deceased in the vehicle and he was done to death by assaulting with iron rod and the dead body was thrown in the canal. The call details record is collected by the Investigating Officer, which discloses that accused Nos.1 and 2 were in constant touch with each other during the commission of the offence. Voluntary statement of the accused No.1 is recorded. She had confessed the commission of offence with the informant and others. The statements of CW-25 were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. CW-34 is the owner of the goods vehicle, who also confirmed that accused No.2 was the driver of the same. Learned High Court Government Pleader further submitted that the weapon

¶31

¶32

i.e., iron rod used in the commission of offence is recovered at the instance of he present petitioner. All these materials were collected during investigation. As per the medical records, the death of deceased is due to hemorrhage and due to head injury. The offence is punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned

¶34

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is :

¶35

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

R E A S O N S

¶39

It is the contention of prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 were having illicit relationship and therefore they criminally conspired to eliminate the deceased, who is the husband of accused No.1. Accordingly, the accused managed to take the deceased in the goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-49/4810 and accused Nos.2 and 3 with common

¶40

¶41

intention, caused his death by assaulting with iron rod and they thrown the dead body in the Ghataprabha left bank canal in order to cause disappearance of evidence of commission of the offence.

¶42

It is stated that accused No.1 has given extra judicial confession before the informant and others regarding commission of the offence. Her voluntary statement is said to have been recorded. The present petitioner was apprehended on 17.08.2020. It is stated that his voluntary statement was also recorded and on the basis of such voluntary statement, iron rod said to have been used in the commission of offence was recovered at his instance under the recovery mahazar. It is stated that the Investigating Officer collected CDR report to establish the link between accused Nos.1 and 2 during the commission of offence. It is also stated that CW-25 is the villager who had last seen the deceased in the company of accused Nos.1 and 2 and other persons. It is stated that he had identified accused Nos.2 and 3 in the police station. Even though, it is stated that the test identification parade was conducted to enable CW-25 to identify accused Nos.2 and 3, at this stage, the materials that are referred to above

¶43

¶44

constitute prima-facie material against the present petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that he has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Even as per the medical records, the death of deceased was homicidal one as he has sustained external injuries and the cause of death is due to hemorrhage and shock due to head injury. It is for the prosecution to establish the guilt of present petitioner/accused No.2 after full-fledged trial. Looking to the seriousness of offence and also the criminal conspiracy said to have plotted by accused Nos.1 to 3 in commission of the offence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, I answer the above point in the ‘Negative’.

¶45

Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Ckk

Kumar S/O Siddappa Swateppagol @ Godchi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar S/O Siddappa Swateppagol @ Godchi 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

State of Karnataka Vs Vinayak S/O Ganesh Naik

State of Karnataka Vs Manjunath S/O Shanmukh Talawar

State of Karnataka Vs Devendra Putu S/O Nagesh Siddi

Shri. Milind S/O Tanaji Kadolkar Vs Shri. Naveed S/O Nazafali Khatib

Saresh K P @ Suresh S/O K.P.Dinesh Vs Suresh Babu S/O Sathyanarayana Rao

Iranna Alias Veeranna S/O Shankrappa Seemikeri Vs the State of Karnataka