Court considered a successive bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case involving weapon charge. Finding no new grounds and noting prima facie case and witness safety concerns, bail was dismissed.
Petition for bail dismissed; petitioner remains in judicial custody.
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 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100773 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SEEMA S NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI MKANKUPPI Location: high courtkarnataka Dharwad bench Date: 2023.06.20 15:00:32 +0530
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP.,)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO. 07/2022 DATED 16.01.2022 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT P.S. FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.302, 451, 120B OF IPC R/W SEC.34 OF IPC, 1860 AND RULE 3 READ WITH SEC. 25(1B)(a) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959, WHEREIN THE PRESENT
PETITIONER IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1, PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT CHIKKODI.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT BENGALURU, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking bail in Crime No.7/2022 of Sankeshwar Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 451
and 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 r/w Section 25(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.
called him and informed him that one Ravi Rathod of Gadahinglaz took Rs.20,00,000/- from her and he will return that amount in this week and hence, she kept the complainant with her for safer side. Earlier to 2-3 days from the date of filing of complaint, his brother Doddagouda Kempanaik Sangnaik also came and joined
them and hence, both of them are sleeping in shop at night, which situated at ground floor of her house. On the previous night, all the three at about 8:30 p.m had dinner at the house of the deceased at first floor and slept at ground floor shop. The deceased was slept alone at her house. In the morning at about 4:45 a.m on 16.01.2022, she called his brother and informed him not to come to her house since one person is coming to her house to return money and he may not give money if he see any other person and if he is called her to difference place, she will inform them for accompanying her. Therefore, they kept quite and due to no call from their aunty for long gap and she was alone at house, his brother made a phone call to her at 7:30 a.m, but she did not pick the phone and hence,
by using upstairs, when he rushed to her house, he saw her dead body fallen facing down and immediately his brother also joined him and both saw bullet near the spot and live bullet in bucket. Immediately they told relatives and informed the death of their aunty. It is stated that some unknown persons for unknown reason murdered his aunty in between 5:45 am and 8:00 a.m, by using pistol. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.7/2022 of Sankeshwar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 302 of IPC and Section 25(16) (a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 against unknown
persons. On 19.01.2022, the police arrested the petitioner/accused No.1 and he is in judicial custody. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. The police recorded his voluntary statement and arrested one Akilesh @ Limbya Mahesh Daroormath of Sangli and arrayed him as accused No.2 and one Rahul S/o Raju @ Raju Singh Rajapooth of Sangli and arrayed him as accused No.3 and further shown one Ajay Sarawa of Madhya Pradesh State as accused No.4. After completing investigation, the
investigating officer filed charge-sheet against accused
Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 451 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 25(18) (a) of Indian Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner/accused No.1 filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.5444/2022 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, Sitting at Chikkodi vide order dated 21.07.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that
there was no proper investigation with regard to the call details record and the Investigating Officer has not ascertained the calls made by the deceased to cell No.9445102002 and the calls received by the deceased from the said phone number, as there were 19 calls in between those cell phones on 15.01.2022. She contended that there is no call record after 5.45 am on 16.01.2022. She contends that the CCTV footages recovered under the mahazar are lagging behind in time by some minutes and hours and considering the same, the presence of the petitioner – accused No.1 in the area of the house of the deceased is doubtful. She contends that CW21 has stated in his statement that he has last seen the petitioner at 5.45 am., at Kamatur Agasi and the said aspect shows that the petitioner was not near the house of the deceased. The live cartridge found on the spot has not been sent to FSL Expert and the FSL Expert has not given his opinion regarding the capacity of the Pistol to fire the bullets and in how many rounds. No finger prints were lifted from the
pistol recovered at the instance of accused No.1. She contends that the petitioner is the only earning member of the family and he is in custody since more than one year and prayed to allow the petition.
accused No.1 had borrowed Rs.25.00 lakhs from the deceased. The deceased was insisting the petitioner – accused No.1 for repayment of the said amount borrowed and she has insulted him asking repayment and abused him in public place and therefore, he was having grudge against the deceased. The call details records of the mobile phone number of the petitioner – accused No.1 which is recovered at his instance reveal that there were several calls between accused No.1 and the deceased. The CCTV footages of the shop in the near road of the deceased reveal the movement of the petitioner - accused No.1 on the date of the incident. Even though there is a time lagging behind in the said CCTV footages, but considering the actual time, the presence of the petitioner was found near the area in which the house of the deceased is located. The pistol and the live cartridge were sent to the Expert and the Expert opined that the said pistol is the Country made and it is in working condition and the empty cartridge was fired from the said pistol.
Merely because the capacity of the said pistol is not opined by the Expert, it is not a ground to consider the grant of bail to the petitioner. All these circumstances along with the other charge sheet material show prima facie case against the petitioner – accused No.1 for the offences alleged against him.
dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether new grounds sufficient to grant bail in a successive petition retracting earlier bail rejections.
Whether inspection of call, CCTV, and forensic reports establishes prima facie case against accused.
Whether grant of bail is safe in view of alleged threats to prosecution witnesses.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
UMESH S/O RAMESH KAMBLE
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
