Partly allowed

Sri Suresh @ Lodde Soori (A-1) v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2021CRL.P/4572/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed bail petitions for two accused accused in a murder conspiracy, ruling them unfit for bail due to risk of fleeing and tampering. It allowed bail for a third accused on grounds of parity with another co-accused previously granted bail in similar circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Bail petitions for accused No.1 and No.5 dismissed; petion for accused No.8 allowed with bond of Rs.2,00,000/- and conditions.

Sri Suresh @ Lodde Soori (A-1) Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4572 OF 2021 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION No.5976 OF 2021 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.5742 OF 2021

¶7

IN CRL.P.NO.4572/2021

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SRI SURESH @ LODDE SOORI (A-1), AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O. SHIVANNA, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.1232, GOSEGOWDA STREET, SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN, MANDYA – 571 438.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SHRIDHARA K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIRANGAPATTANA TOWN POLICE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.229/2020 OF SRIRANGAPATNA POLICE STATION, MANDYA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER

¶16

¶17

SECTIONS 120(B), 341, 302, 143, 144, 148, 201 AND 149 OF THE IPC.

¶18

IN CRL.P.NO.5976/2021

¶19

BETWEEN

¶20

BHARATH KUMAR R. @ BANDE @ BHARATH S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT POST OFFICE ROAD, SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶21

…PETITIONER (BY KUM. RAKSHA KEERTHANA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND

¶23

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIRANGAPATNA RURAL POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.08/2021 (CRIME NO.229/2020) OF SRIRANGAPATNA POLICE STATION, MANDYA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120-B, 143, 341, 144, 148, 302 AND 201 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE IPC.

¶26

IN CRL.P.NO.5742/2021

¶27

BETWEEN

¶28

DHARMARATHNAKARA @ MAALINGA @ MAALI, S/O. BRAHAMALINGA,

¶29

¶30

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT SIDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE, NEAR DOUBLE BANK, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT – 570 001.

¶31

…PETITIONER

¶32

(BY SRI VASANTH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND

¶34

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶35

…RESPONDENT

¶36

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶37

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.5036/2021 (CRIME NO.229/2020) OF SRIRANGAPATNA POLICE STATION, MANDYA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 143, 144, 341, 148, 302, 201 AND 149 OF THE IPC.

¶38

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Crl.P.No.4572/2021 is filed by the petitioner-accused

¶41

No.1 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for granting anticipatory bail. Crl.P.No.5742/2021 is filed by accused No.8 which is successive bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., and Crl.P.No.5976/2021 is filed by accused No.5 under Section

¶42

¶43

439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.229/2020 registered by Srirangapatna Police Station, Mandya District for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 341, 148, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

¶44

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶45

The case of the prosecution is that the father of the deceased namely Narayana filed a complaint alleging that his son Harish (deceased) was residing along with the complainant since the wife of Harish was expired. That on 22.10.2020 at about 9.00 a.m., the said Harish brought food to the complainant to the land and returned to home in bike. Later the complainant went to home and asked his wife about Harish, for which his wife stated that Harish went to Srirangapatna to bring some items for festival purpose. At about 9 a.m., when the complainant and his wife were sleeping, at that time one Nandish S/o

¶46

¶47

Prakash came to the complainant’s house and informed that somebody has killed Harish near the Pakshidhama Gate. Immediately, the complainant and his wife went to the spot in the scooter of Nandish and found that his son was murdered. A long was present beside the body of Harish and also a car bearing No.KA-11-M-9760 was found on the footpath next to the dead body of Harish. Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint against unknown persons. During the investigation, the Police arrested some of the accused including accused Nos.5 and 8 who are the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5976/2021 and Crl.P.No.5742/2021 respectively. After the investigation, the Police also filed charge-sheet for the above said offences. Accused No.8 has filed a petition before this Court on the earlier occasion during the crime stage in Crl.P.No.2256/2021 which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 16.04.2021. Hence, he has approached this Court on the changed circumstances after filing the charge-sheet. Accused No.5 approached this Court for the first time and the petitioner-accused No.1 has sought for anticipatory bail. As his name is shown as

¶48

¶49

accused No.1, the Police are making hectic efforts to arrest accused No.1. Accused No.1 approached the Sessions Judge for grant of bail which came to be rejected on 16.04.2021 in Crl.Misc.No.5106/2021. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶50

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for petitioner-accused No.1 has contended that the case is registered against unknown persons. The name of accused No.1 is not found in the FIR and his name was implicated only after recording the voluntary statement of accused Nos.2 and 3 that too after eight days of the incident. Even otherwise, except the allegation that he has paid Rs.50,000/- to accused Nos.2 and 3 to eliminate the deceased-Harish, there is no evidence on record. CWs. 15 and 16 are the witnesses who were spoken about the criminal conspiracy said to be held between accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 that too two months prior to the incident. Even on taking the voluntary statement of accused No.2 which

¶51

¶52

reveals the conspiracy is said to be held 1½ month back. There is a contradiction in respect of conspiracy held between the accused. Even though CWs.15 and 16 came to know about the conspiracy, they have not intimated or alerted the deceased and their statement also recorded by the Police after 20 days of the incident. The conspiracy is required to be proved only before the trial Court and accused No.1 is acquitted in the earlier murder case except this case. There is no other case registered against him. He is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accused No.1 is not required for any custodial interrogation as the charge-sheet is already been filed. Hence, prayed for granting anticipatory bail.

¶53

Sri Vasanth Kumar R, learned counsel for accused No.8 has contended that there is no specific overt act attributed against this petitioner in assaulting the deceased, except he along with accused No.6 were watching the public and were not allowing them to come near the spot. There is no recovery from this petitioner.

¶54

¶55

He has not participated in the criminal conspiracy. It is only against accused Nos.1 to 3. Having similar allegation against accused No.6, he has been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, on the ground of parity, he is entitled for bail. Hence, prayed for allowing his petition.

¶56

Kum. Raksha Keerthana, learned counsel appearing for accused No.5 has contended that the name of accused No.5 is not mentioned in the FIR. His name was implicated only on the voluntary statement. Accused No.5 was also arrested along with other accused on 01.11.2020. Since, then accused No.5 is in custody. There is no recovery from him except the mobile phone. Accused No.7 having similar allegation has granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, accused No.5 is also entitled for regular bail. There is no eye-witness to the incident. He has no knowledge or intention of committing offence. His name is implicated only on the voluntary statement. He is in custody nearly for ten

¶57

¶58

months. Therefore, prayed for granting bail by imposing certain conditions.

¶59

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and contended that accused No.1 is a gang leader. He was also an accused in murder case. There is a strong material placed on record to show that he along with accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed murder. All these accused persons are the followers of accused No.1. He has paid money for accused Nos.2 and 3 for the purchase of weapon, vehicle and also for eliminating the deceased. Accused No.1 is still absconding in spite of filing the charge-sheet. Accused No.5 is actually participated in committing murder of the deceased by assaulting with long . Therefore, the ground of parity is not available to accused No.5. However, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that accused No.8 is seeking bail on the ground of parity and the allegation against him is at par as accused No.6 who has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench. The

¶60

10

¶61

statement of CWs.15 and 16 clearly reveals that the criminal conspiracy held between accused Nos.1 to 3. The offence committed by the accused are all the rival rowdy gang. Though the deceased who is also a rowdy element, if the petitioners are granted bail, there is every possibility of committing similar offences and threatening the witnesses are not ruled out. Hence, prayed for dismissal the petition.

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the deceased is also a rowdy sheeter and somebody might have committed murder of the deceased. But on the case of the rival gang, the names of the petitioners are shown as accused.

¶63

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly the allegation against accused No.1 is criminal conspiracy which attracts 120B of IPC. Of course, he has not directly involved in the offence except paying Rs.50,000/- 1½ months prior to the incident to accused Nos.2 and 3. Subsequently, accused Nos.2 to 8

¶64

¶65

were hatched plan to commit murder of the deceasedHarish who is also a rowdy sheeter and rival gang leader. After receiving the money, accused persons purchased weapon and also old motorbike for Rs.4,000/-. Of course, the name of accused No.1 has been revealed by accused Nos.2 and 3 in their voluntary statement. From the date of incident, accused No.1 is absconding. Subsequently, after the conspiracy, other accused were watching the movement of the deceased. On 22.10.2020, the deceased came alone in his car and at that time accused Nos.2 to 8 attacked the deceased and committed murder. Of course, accused Nos.6 and 8 stood outside near the place of occurrence and watching the road and diverting the public and accused Nos.2 to 7 executed the plan of murder. Accused No.6 has granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.3032/2021, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench has clearly held that the allegation against him was only watching near the spot and preventing the public from stopping the vehicle near the place of incident and on that ground, the bail has been granted. Whereas, another Co-

¶66

¶67

ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to accused No.7 in Crl.P.No.4145/2021 holding that accused No.6 granted bail, therefore, on the ground of parity, accused No.7 is also entitled for bail.

¶68

Perused the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting bail to accused No.7. In fact, the allegation against accused No.7 and accused No.6 all together different as accused No.6 was only watching the public and not allowing the public near the occurrence of incident. But accused No.7 is actually assaulted the deceased along with other accused. But the Co-ordinate Bench has not considered this fact while granting bail to accused No.7. Therefore, the allegation made against accused No.5 who was also actually participated in assaulting the deceased along with accused No.7 cannot be considered as ground of parity for granting bail to accused No.5. Accused No.5 is actually participated in the offence and assaulted on the head of the deceased with long and committed murder. Thereafter, the bike was

¶69

¶70

also seized from his custody. Apart from the mobile phone of accused No.5, the blood stained cloth was also seized by the Police. Therefore, I am of the view that accused No.5 is not entitled for bail on the ground of parity on par with either accused Nos.6 or 7 for the reasons stated above.

¶71

Whereas accused No.8 whose bail petition is rejected by this Court during the crime stage, the Coordinate Bench while granting bail to accused No.6 on the ground that he was only watching the public and not allowing them to come near the spot. Actually, accused No.8 has not assaulted the deceased. Therefore, accused No.8 is entitled for bail in view of filing of the charge-sheet by making additional ground for granting bail on the ground of parity.

¶72

Now coming to the case of accused No.1, he is continuously absconding, though the allegation against him is that accused No.1 had a grudge over the deceased. Hence, he asked accused Nos.2 and 3 to eliminate the deceased for which he would give supari of Rs.3,00,000/-

¶73

¶74

to them and in advance, accused No.1 has paid Rs.50,000/- to accused Nos.2 and 3 for the purchase of weapon and also to purchase motor cycle and to eliminate the deceased. But still he is absconding. Of course, there is a delay in recording the statements of CWs.15 and 16 for 20 days and merely the delay in recording their statements cannot be disbelieved at this stage before going to the trial without impeachment of their statement as they have not disclosed the same to the deceased or to any other persons about the conspiracy.

¶75

Therefore, their statement cannot be appreciated or re-appreciated at this stage as the offence is heinous one. In a rival gang, both the petitioners were rowdy sheeter. Therefore, if accused No.1 and 5 are released on bail, there is every possibility of tampering the witnesses and committing similar offences are not ruled out. Therefore, accused Nos.1 and 5 are not entitled for bail. Hence, I pass the following

¶76

15

¶77

ORDER

¶78

Crl.P.No.4572/2021 filed by accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and Crl.P.No.5976/2021 filed by accused No.5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are hereby dismissed .

¶79

Crl.P.No.5742/2021 filed by accused No.8 is hereby allowed .

¶80

The trial Court is directed to release the petitioneraccused No.8 on bail in Crime No.229/2020 registered by Srirangapatna Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 144, 341, 148, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶81

(i) Petitioner-accused No.8 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- ( Rupees Two Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶82

(ii) Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences strictly;

¶83

¶84

(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly; and

¶85

(iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.

¶86

If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶87

Sd/JUDGE

¶88

GBB

Sri Suresh @ Lodde Soori (A-1) v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Suresh @ Lodde Soori (A-1) v. 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

Vijay Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Chamaiah D.S., Vs the State-through the

Mr Gopi L Vs Smt. Shreya @ Rani

Sri Lokesh B R Vs State of Karnataka

Byralingappa Vs Anvaruddin

Bharath Kumar R. @ Bande @ Bharath Vs State of Karnataka