Allowed

Ganapati Dyaneshwar Sugate Alias Gondhali S/O Dyaneshwar Sugate v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2024CRL.P/100056/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench allowed a bail petition filed by accused no.6 in a murder case pending before the District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner, having no criminal antecedents and kept in custody for over two years pending trial, was enlarged on regular bail Suo Motu.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial court subject to conditions including personal bond, attendance, and no tampering.

Ganapati Dyaneshwar Sugate Alias Gondhali S/O… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2425 CRL.P No. 100056 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100056 OF 2024 (439)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

GANAPATI DYANESHWAR SUGATE @ GONDHALI S/O. DYANESHWAR SUGATE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O. VIDHYA NAGAR, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591302.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR R. P, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KHANAPUR POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

Digitally VIJAYALAXMI signed by M BHAT VIJAYALAXMI M BHAT

¶14

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.220/2021 OF KHANAPUR P.S. PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN S.C. NO.7/2022 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 120B, 341, 364, 388, 302, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND U/S 27 OF THE ARMS ACT.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2425 CRL.P No. 100056 of 2024

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Accused No.6 in S.C.No.7/2022 pending before the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi arising out of Crime No.220/2021 registered by Khanapur Police Station, District Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 341, 364, 388, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act is before this Court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

3. It is case of prosecution that the complainant-

¶23

Smt. Najeema Shaikh, who is the mother of deceasedArbaaz had lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer of Khanapur Police Station, Belagavi District on 04.10.2021 and based on the same, FIR was initially registered against accused Nos.1, 3 and 10 for the

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2425 CRL.P No. 100056 of 2024

¶25

offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with

¶26

Section 34 of IPC.

¶27

During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 07.10.2021. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed totally against 10 persons. Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.6 in the charge sheet. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.589/2022 was rejected on 12.05.2022. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that accused No.1, 2, 3, 8 and 9 have been granted regular bail by this Court. He submits that entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. The case before the Trial Court is still on the stage of Hearing Before Charge and there are 140 charge sheet witnesses. Petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2425 CRL.P No. 100056 of 2024

¶30

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the petition. She submits that the accused, who have been granted regular bail by this Court had not played any active role in committing the murder of deceased-Arbaaz. Bail application filed by accused No.10 who was present along with petitioner and accused Nos.4, 5 and 7 at the spot of incident has been rejected. Accused Nos.4 to 7 and 10 have committed heinous offence of murder and therefore, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶31

From a reading of the complaint as well as charge sheet allegations, it appears that deceased-Arbaaz and daughter of accused Nos.1 and 2, Swetha (CW-47) were in love and this was opposed by accused Nos.1 and 2. Inspite of the same, deceased and Swetha continued their love affair. Accused Nos.1 and 2 therefore had sent their daughter-Swetha to the house of the sister of accused No.2 and while Swetha stayed in the said house, she continued to speak with deceased by using mobile phone of neighborers. This fact had come to the notice of

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2425 CRL.P No. 100056 of 2024

¶33

accused No.8 who had brought the same to the notice of accused Nos.1 and 2. It is in this background, accused Nos.1 and 2 had conspired initially with accused Nos.3 and 4 for committing the murder of Arbaaz and they also had paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- out of the supari amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to accused No.3.

¶34

Accused Nos.3 and 4 thereafter contacted other accused persons and hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of Arbaaz. In furtherance of such conspiracy, on 28.09.2021 at about 7.00 p.m. while the deceased-Arbaaz was traveling in a K.S.R.T.C. bus from Belagavi to Khanapur, accused Nos.5 to 7 and 10 intercepted the said bus and kidnapped Arbaaz in their Omni car and thereafter at about 7.20 p.m. accused Nos.4 to 7 and 10 allegedly pulled out Arbaaz from the car near Khanapur-Desur railway road and assaulted him with deadly weapons and committed his murder. The dead body of Arbaaz was thereafter placed on the railway track with an intention to destroy the evidence and thereafter, accused Nos.4 to 7

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2425 CRL.P No. 100056 of 2024

¶36

and 10 allegedly had contacted accused No.3 who had

¶37

given them supari and informed him about murder.

¶38

The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Except the last seen

¶39

circumstance, there is no other strong piece of evidence at this stage against the accused to connect them to the crime. CW50 has stated that he had seen accused Nos.5 to 7 and 10 along with the deceased on 28.09.2021 traveling in Omni car. Accused Nos.1 to 3, 8 and 9 have been granted regular bail by this Court in Crl.P.Nos.102966/2023, 103360/2022, 103296/2023, 102533/2022 and 100648/2023. Accused nos.1 and 2 are the persons who allegedly had given the supari to accused

¶40

nos.3 and 4 for committing the murder of deceased Arbaaz. They also allegedly have paid supari money to accused no.3. Accused no.3 inturn had engaged the services of other accused persons including the petitioner herein for committing the murder of Arbaaz. Accused nos.1, 2 and 3 have been already granted regular bail by

¶41

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2425 CRL.P No. 100056 of 2024

¶42

this Court. The petitioner is in custody from 07.10.2021 onwards. For the last more than two years, he is in custody. The case before the trial Court is still at the stage of hearing before the charge. Prosecution has cited 140 witnesses in the charge sheet Therefore, chances of the trial in the case being completed in the near soon is very

¶43

remote. Bail application of accused No.10 has been rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 10.07.2022. Though 1½ years have lapsed after the said order, there is no progress in the case before the trial Court. Therefore, the rejection of bail petition of accused no.10 cannot be a sole consideration to reject the bail application of the petitioner also. Incarceration of accused for long period of time is a ground for granting bail. The case of the prosecution is completely based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the role played by each of the accused person as alleged in the charge sheet is based only on the confession statement of the accused.

¶44

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2425 CRL.P No. 100056 of 2024

¶45

Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the prayer made by the petitioner who has no criminal antecedence and is aged only about 27 years for grant of regular bail is required to be answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

Petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.7/2022 pending before the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi arising out of Crime No.220/2021 registered by Khanapur Police Station, District Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 341, 364, 388, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 27 of the

¶48

Indian Arms Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶49

i. The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶50

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2425 CRL.P No. 100056 of 2024

¶51

ii. The petitioner shall attend Trial Court regularly on all dates of hearing unless his appearance is exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.

¶52

iii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶53

iv. The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

CKK 1-8,VMB-9 to 10 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Ganapati Dyaneshwar Sugate Alias Gondhali S/O Dyaneshwar Sugate v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganapati Dyaneshwar Sugate Alias Gondhali S/O Dyaneshwar Sugate 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

Shri Bharaaamalingappa Alias Bharamu S/O Ningappa Myageri Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh S/O Kotrappa Nagappanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Mahadev Channappa Hattarki Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashif Alias Maktumahusen S/O Lalsab Alias Sannlalsab Killedar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Athamanand Alias Atma S/O. Basavarj Patat Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Mahaveer S/O. Neminath Solapure, Vs the State of Karnataka