Dismissed

Sri Manjunatha K v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2021CRL.P/965/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by four accused persons charged with murder (302 IPC), conspiracy (34 IPC), and concealment of dead body (201 IPC). The Court held that due to pending investigation, reliability of evidence, and risk of tampering, it was not a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition of accused Nos. 1 to 4 dismissed; they remain in judicial custody.

Sri Manjunatha K Vs State of Karnataka by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No.965 OF 2021

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Sri.Manjunatha K. S/o Sri.Kondappa Aged about 39 years, Residing near Lakshmi Palace Kalyana Mantapa Thirumalashetty Village Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District-562 114.

¶7

Gopi S/o Srinivasalu Aged about 20 years, c/o Narayanappa 9^th Cross, Belathur Colony Kadugodi, Bengaluru-560 067.

¶8

Bharath B. @ Padi, S/o Babu, Aged about 18 years, No.70, “Kanasu” Belathur Colony Kadugodi, Bengaluru-560 067.

¶9

Harish, S/o Narayanaswamy, Aged about 26 years, Residing behind Chowdeshwari Bhavan

¶10

¶11

Yellareddy Circle, Kadugodi, Bengaluru – 560 067.

¶12

...Petitioners

¶13

(By Sri.C.R.Gopalaswamy, Advocate)

¶14

AND:

¶15

State of Karnataka by Kadugodi Police Station, Represented by Public Prosecutor State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶16

…Respondent

¶17

(By Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

¶18

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.268/2020 of Kadugodi P.S., Bangalore, for the offence P/U/Ss.368, 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶19

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail in Crime No.268/2020 registered by Kadugodi Police, for the offences punishable under Sections 368, 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC.

¶22

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that one Sri.Narasimha Murthy Dixit is the complainant, who lodged a complaint before the respondent police on 20.12.2020 alleging that he is working as Archaka in Kasi Vishwanatha Temple at Bengaluru and his brother namely Neelakanta Dixit also doing the same work. They have sold some property and used to lend the sale consideration for interest through one Anjaneya Reddy and except Anjaneya Reddy, he was not dealing with anybody.

¶24

It is further alleged that accused No.1

¶25

Sri.Manjunatha K. was running business in paint shop situated behind the house of Neelakanta Dixit. In that context, on the request of accused No.1, the complainant’s brother Neelakanta Dixit Lent a sum of Rs.10,00,000/directly to Manjunatha for interest. The said Manjuntha was initially paying the interest punctually, but subsequently he has committed default to pay the interest. Therefore, his brother insisted accused No.1 to pay the interest or else he has to pay the principle amount and his

¶26

¶27

brother also told the accused No.1 that he will come to the shop and demand money in the presence of his wife and children and others, thereafter from 5.9.2020 Neelakanta Dixit was missing.

¶28

The complaint came to be lodged on 20.12.2020 alleging that accused No.1 might have kidnapped his brother and detained at some unknown place. After filing of the complaint, the case came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 368 of IPC. On the same day, the police made a request to the Magistrate to add Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. It reveals from the investigation that, after receipt of the complaint the police arrested accused No.1, they recorded the voluntary statement where the accused No.1 confessed that he has committed murder of the deceased Neelakanta Dixit in his stall when he came for demanding for repayment of loan and he also sought help of accused Nos.2 and 3 who are workers in the same Hardware shop for transportation of the dead body. Later with the help of accused Nos.2 and 3

¶29

¶30

the body was shifted behind the choultry. Accused Nos.2 and 3 after digging the pit ran away. Therefore, he has approached accused No.4 who has residing in the upper floor of the shop and with the help of accused No.4 he has shifted the dead body in a plastic cover and buried behind the choultry.

¶31

After recording the voluntary statement, the police recovered the dead body by exhumation and conducted post mortem examination and they also arrested accused Nos.2 to 4. They have been in judicial custody. The petitioners approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail and the same came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences. They have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no complaint for four months about missing of the deceased, but the complaint came to be filed only on 20.12.2020 and within four hours the police traced the

¶33

¶34

accused and said to be investigated accused No.1 who committed the murder and requested the Magistrate to add Sections 201 and 302 of IPC, which creates a doubt on the story of the prosecution. Motive also is not acceptable. As per the complaint the quarrel took place in May 2020 and there is no possibility to carry out the same motive for commission of murder till September 2020. There is no eyewitness to the incident. There is no circumstantial evidence to show any of the witness seen the accused with the company of the deceased. No documents are available to show that the deceased have lent any loan to the accused in order to prove the motive and the entire transaction of the loan were look after by Anjaneya Reddy and not directly by the deceased. The identification of the deceased itself is doubtful. The learned counsel further contended that the allegations against accused Nos.2 to 4 are, they have already gone in disposing of the dead body. Therefore, it cannot be said that they have been common intention in commission of murder of the deceased. The

¶35

¶36

accused were in judicial custody almost from 75 days. Hence, prayed for grant of bail.

¶37

7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader objected the petition mainly on the ground that the investigation is still pending. The Investigating Officer yet to collect the materials. There are eyewitnesses who were seen the accused quarrelling with the deceased. The body was exhumed at the instance of the accused. It has come in the evidence that the ornaments of the deceased have been recovered from the Attica Gold Company which was sold by the accused for payment of money to accused Nos.2 and 3 for helping him to shift the dead body. Accused No.1 committed the murder of the deceased in his own shop when the deceased came for demanding repayment of loan. The incriminating articles were recovered, post mortem report shows that there are 11 anti-mortem injuries found on the dead body. The complainant and relatives have identified the dead body. Therefore, if the petitioners were granted bail, there is

¶38

¶39

every possibility of absconding, threatening and tampering the prosecution evidence. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶40

By considering the evidence and documents available on record and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader, it reveals that no doubt the complainant filed a missing complaint on 20.12.2020 that his brother Neelakanta Dixit was found missing from his house from 5.9.2020 and the complainant has stated that they have lent money to the public for interest through Sri.Anjaneya Reddy, but his brother has given Rs.10,00,000/- to the accused and has direct contact with the accused No.1. Though initially accused No.1 was paying the interest, later he was not in a position to pay the interest and he is said to be the defaulter. Due to Corona lockdown, he would not be able to pay any interest. Therefore, the deceased have demanded the very principle amount than the interest and the deceased said

¶41

¶42

to have warned him that he will come and demand money in the presence of his wife and children in the shop, thereby he may damage his reputation. Accordingly, on 5.9.2020 the deceased said to have been went to the shop of the accused at 8.00 p.m. and the accused took him inside the shop and there he has assaulted and stabbed and committed the murder.

¶43

After hearing the noise, accused Nos.2 and 3 came inside the shop the questioned the accused. The accused promised to pay some amount to them and sought for help for disposal of the dead body. Thereafter, with the help of accused Nos.2 and 4 the body was buried behind the choultry. The investigation reveals, after arrest of accused No.1, he went to the place and shown where the dead body was buried. Later the body was exhumed and conducted post mortem and found 11 anti-mortem injuries on the dead body. The brother of the deceased identified the dead body as that of his brother Neelakanta Dixt. The statement of the witnesses as per the case dairy

¶44

10 -

¶45

reveals, there are persons who saw when the deceased went to the shop of the accused. The police also recovered the gold chain from the Attica Gold Company which was sold by the accused No.1 to pay money to accused Nos.2 and 3 for help in disposing of the body. Of course the allegation against accused Nos.2 to 4 that they have helped accused No.1 for disposing of the body, attract Section 201 of IPC and Section 302 of IPC applies to accused No.1 alone, however, investigation is still pending, the charge sheet is yet to be filed, by looking into the facts and circumstances, at this stage, if the bail is granted to the petitioner, there is every possibility of absconding and tampering the prosecution evidence are not ruled out. Therefore, I am of the considered view that at this stage, it is not a fit case to grant bail.

¶46

Accordingly, the bail petition is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Sri Manjunatha K v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha K v. State of Karnataka by

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

S R Praveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Vishruth N Raj Vs State

Rudresh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shankar. Y. K. Vs the State of Karnataka

Raja Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Tharakeshwari Vs the State of Karnataka