Dismissed

Shivaraju @ Kulla Shiva v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Apr 2023CRL.P/502/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a bail petition filed by a petitioner accused of murder, robbery, and criminal conspiracy. The court held that the recovery of Rs.70,000 cash from the petitioner, who worked as a daily wager with no explanation, established a direct nexus with the crime, disentitling him to bail.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition for bail was rejected and the petitioner shall remain in judicial custody.

Shivaraju @ Kulla Shiva Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 502 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 502 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHIVARAJU @ KULLA SHIVA, S/O KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT GARIBI SITU, BELATURU, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA - 57.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MANOJ S N, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MANDYA EAST POLICE STATION, NOW REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. S VISHWA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.87/2020 OF MANDYA EAST P.S., MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.120-B,

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 502 of 2023

¶20

457, 380, 302, 396 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MANDYA IN S.C.NO.23/2021.

¶21

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

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard Sri. Manoj S. N., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S. Vishwa Murthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶24

Present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶25

with the following prayer:

¶26

“ WHEREFORE , it is respectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioner that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order granting bail thereby directing the respondent police to release the petitioner/accused in Cr.No.87/2020 for the offences punishable U/Sec.120B, 457, 380, 302 & 396 of I.P.C registered by the Mandya East Police Station pending before the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge Mandya in S.C. No.23/2021 in the interest of justice."

¶27

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶28

¶29

CRL.P No. 502 of 2023

¶30

Girish G. N. lodged a complaint with Mandya East Police on 11.09.2020 against the petitioner, which was registered in Crime No.87/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 396 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short).

¶31

Gist of the complaint averments reveal that the complainant is working as Archak in Arkeshwara Temple, car street, Guttalu, Mandya City. On 10.09.2020 at about 8 p.m., after finishing the day's pooja, he locked the temple and intimated the watchmen namely Prakash, Ganesh and Anand to carefully look after the temple and left home. On 11.09.2020 at about 6 a.m. as usual, when he visited the temple and near the outer gate, one Shivu met him and intimated him that watchmen namely Prakash, Ganesh and Anand are found dead. Shivu used to procure flowers for the pooja in the temple everyday and immediately archaka and shivu went inside the temple and noticed the dead bodies of watchmens namely Prakash, Ganesh and Anand on a mat with the pool of blood. Thereafter wards, they noticed that three 'hundies' were opened and money inside the 'hundies' was stolen away by

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 502 of 2023

¶34

unknown miscreants. He estimated the loss of money to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs.

¶35

Based on the said complaint, Mandya East Police

¶36

have registered the case as aforesaid and investigated the matter.

¶37

During the course of investigation, the Investigating

¶38

Agency apprehended the petitioner and other accused persons. Based on the voluntary statement given by the present petitioner, Investigating Agency is able to recover a sum of Rs.70,000/- cash from the custody of the petitioner. After thorough investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 457, 380, 302 and 396 of IPC.

¶39

The attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail was turned down by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in S.C. No.23/2021. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶40

Sri. Manoj S. N., learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition sought for grant of bail.

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 502 of 2023

¶43

He further contended that except remaining of Rs. 70,000/- cash and voluntary statement of anand and coaccused persons no other material is available on record to establish nexus between incident and petitioner.

¶44

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

¶45

opposes for grant of bail by reiterating the contentions urged in the statement of objections.

¶46

Learned HCGP further contended that there is a recovery of sum to the tune of Rs.70,000/- cash from the custody of the accused petitioner and there is no explanation forthcoming from the accused petitioner for the possession of Rs.70,000/- especially, when the accused petitioner is a daily wager.

¶47

He also contended that blood stained cloth was also recovered from the custody of the petitioner and therefore, sought for rejection of the bail.

¶48

In reply, Sri. Manoj, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that possessing Rs.70,000/- cash is not a incriminating circumstance insofar as the petitioner is concerned and therefore, sought for grant of bail.

¶49

¶50

CRL.P No. 502 of 2023

¶51

In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

¶52

On such perusal of the materials on record it reveals that the complaint came to be lodged by Archak of the Arkeshwara temple against unknown persons as to the loss of Rs.5 lakhs cash found in the three iron safe hundies, which is kept in the temple premises of Arkeshwara Temple, Mandya. The complainant also noticed the dead bodies of Prakash, Ganesh and Anand, who were working as watchmen in the temple.

¶53

Police after registering the case against unknown persons, conducted a detailed investigation and apprehended the present petitioner and other accused persons.

¶54

Admittedly, a sum of Rs.70,000/- is recovered from the custody of the petitioner based on the voluntary statement given by the petitioner.

¶55

It is pertinent to note that no explanation is offered by the petitioner for the possession of Rs.70,000/- cash.

¶56

¶57

CRL.P No. 502 of 2023

¶58

Further, the case is based on circumstantial evidence and therefore, petitioner is to be enlarged on bail is the arguments i.e., canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the accused petitioner would not get an right to seek for grant of bail ipso facto. More so, when the allegations are grave in nature. In the case on hand, there is murder of three watchmen of Arkeshwara Temple namely Prakash, Ganesh and Anand are for the gain.

¶59

Admittedly, the incident has occurred during the period of peak of the pandemic COVID-2019. At that juncture, there was a lockdown as well. How the petitioner was in possession of Rs.70,000/- cash that too, when he was working as a daily wager is a question that remains to be enquired into by the trial Court during the trial.

¶60

It is settled principles of law that requires no emphasis that while considering the bail request of a petitioner, this Court need not hold a mini trial to find out the merits or demerits of the case as the same may prejudice the case of the parties during the trial one way or the other.

¶61

¶62

CRL.P No. 502 of 2023

¶63

Suffice to say that the materials on record especially, recovery of a sum of Rs.70,000/- cash from the petitioner and in the absence of plausible explanation of possession of said money would form direct nexus between the petitioner and the incident.

¶64

Prosecution having invoked Section 120B of IPC, individual overt-acts of the any one of the accused would not be of great significance and prosecution is expected to establish the charges leveled against the accused petitioners before the trial Court by placing such evidence on record.

¶65

It is too premature for this Court to arrive at a opinion that the petitioner is totally innocent of the offences alleged against him having regard to the fact that there is a recovery of a sum of Rs.70,000/- cash from the custody of the petitioner.

¶66

Suffice to say that the materials on record at this stage would definitely disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an order of grant of bail by resorting to the special powers vested in this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶67

¶68

CRL.P No. 502 of 2023

¶69

Whenever there is a rejection of the bail, the natural consequence is that the accused would be continued in the judicial custody and the same cannot be treated as pre-trial conviction.

¶70

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion

¶71

that the grounds urged in the petition are hardly not sufficient to accept the request for grant of bail. Hence, this Court passes the following:

¶72

O R D E R

¶73

The Criminal Petition is rejected .

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT: BHK

Shivaraju @ Kulla Shiva v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaraju @ Kulla Shiva 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

Raju @ Kerala Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Kiran Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ashokkumar Nayak @ Ganesha Vs State by Station House Officer Huliyar Police Station

Mr Joseph Francis Rensen Vs State of Karnataka

Chiranjeevi Vs State by Rmc Yard Police

Kaifulla Khan @ Khaif Vs State of Karnataka