Allowed

Shankar S/O Ramappa Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2024CRL.P/101729/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted bail to the petitioner, accused No.1 in a murder and robbery case involving the deceased's grandson, upholding that the case relies on circumstantial evidence with investigation lacunae.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of appearance, no new offences, and surrendering to trial court.

Shankar S/O Ramappa Patil Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9533 CRL.P No. 101729 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101729 OF 2024 (439)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHANKAR S/O. RAMAPPA PATIL, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KORAVANJI NAGAR, JANGTIHAL, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAVI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI M.J.PEERJADE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, HUKKERI POLICE STATION, DIST: BELAGAVI, R/BY S.P.P. KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BENCH DHARWAD.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT.KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶16

CHANDRASHEKAR HIGH LAXMANKATTIMANI COURT OFKARNATAKA

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 MAY BE ORDERED TO BE ENLARGED ON REGULAR BAIL, IN SESSIONS CASE NO.5040/2023 I.E., HUKKERI P.S. CR.180/2022 OF THE OFFENCES P/U/SC. 302, 120(B), 201 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BELAGAVI, SITTING AT CHIKKODI.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9533 CRL.P No. 101729 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri M.J.Peerjade, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

¶22

The petitioner herein is the accused No.1 in Crime No.180/2022 wherein the respondent/police have registered a case against the petitioner for the offences u/sec.302, 120-B, 201 R/W 34 of IPC.

¶23

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶24

It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint came to be registered by the complainant who is none other than the grandson of the deceased. As per the averments of the complaint, on 07.10.2022 around 5.00 p.m., the complainant went to the house of his grandmother to give food. He went inside the house and she was sleeping on the cot. Though he tried to wake her up, she did not wake up. Thereafter, the complainant switched on his mobile torch and saw that his grandmother was died on the cot. He had noticed that the blood was oozing from her ear and nose and all the

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9533 CRL.P No. 101729 of 2024

¶26

ornaments which she was wearing as a customary, were found missing. Immediately, he called the neighbours and informed the others about the death of his grandmother.

¶27

After confirming that somebody might have killed her, he lodged a complaint before the police seeking for suitable action against unknown persons. Thereafter, they started investigation. During investigation, they found that the petitioner and another were involving in the said incident and they killed the deceased and robbed the gold ornaments and other relevant documents pertaining to land. After having conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

¶28

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not committed any offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The complaint is lodged against unknown persons and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The alleged recovery has not been effected at his instance. The petitioner is an agriculturist and permanent resident of Koravanji Nagar, Jangtihal, Hukkeri Taluk and he will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9533 CRL.P No. 101729 of 2024

¶30

Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶31

Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶32

Pleader vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that the petitioner herein had involved in two more other cases of different jurisdiction of the police stations. He is an habitual offender and if he is released on bail, there may be chances of committing similar offences. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant him bail and moreover, the recovery has been effected at his instance, after the incident, the petitioner and his friend robbed the gold ornaments. The said ornaments recovered at his instance and it has been identified by the family members of the deceased. Therefore, it is not appropriate to consider his bail application. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the petition.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet and complaint, it appears from the record that the deceased was doing money lending business. The

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9533 CRL.P No. 101729 of 2024

¶35

petitioner had availed loan of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 5% per month. The deceased was insisting him to return the amount along with interest. Being frustrated the demand made by the deceased, he hatched plan along with accused No.2 and decided to eliminate her with an intention to commit robbery. On 05.10.2022, they conspired in the house of accused No.1, who is the petitioner herein and on the following day, they went to the house of the deceased and as per her direction, they assisted in some household works and thereafter she went to sleep in her bedroom. The petitioner and another went to the bedroom and strangulated and killed her and robbed the gold ornaments and other documents of her and went away from the house.

¶36

As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the recovery of gold ornaments was effected on 22.11.2022. However, the rope allegedly used for commission was recovered much earlier than the arrest of the petitioner. Be that as it may. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Mere recovery of the gold ornaments stated to be that of deceased is not sufficient to

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9533 CRL.P No. 101729 of 2024

¶38

deny the bail. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that since the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and there are some lacunae in the investigation, it is appropriate to grant him bail.

¶39

It is needless to say that as per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein is on bail in respect of other two cases. Having considered the said facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The petition is allowed.

¶42

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.180/2022 of Hukkeri Police Station on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶43

a) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court regularly without fail.

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9533 CRL.P No. 101729 of 2024

¶45

b) The petitioner shall not commit any offences after granting of bail till disposal of three cases.

¶46

c) The petitioner shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶47

d) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Court till disposal of the case.

¶48

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

CLK CT:ANB

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Shankar S/O Ramappa Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar S/O Ramappa Patil v. the 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

Sri Lingaraj S/O Late Maheshappa Benakal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Siddharth S/O Shivaji Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Laxman S/O Nagappa Singannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shabbirmahmad S/O Ismailmahmad Vs the State of Karnataka

Vinod S/O Hanamappa Kothabal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mustaf S/O Maktumsab Rasulanavar Vs the State of Karnataka