Allowed

Channakeshava Alias Chankesha Alias G M Mahadeva v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Mar 2024CRL.P/1930/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought by an accused charged with murder, robbery and causing disappearance of evidence in his neighbour's death. The High Court found the prosecution case purely circumstantial, with gaps in call details and identification of recovered property, allowed the petition, and enlarged him on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No.72/2023 on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, subject to conditions.

Channakeshava Alias Chankesha Alias G M… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:12907 CRL.P No. 1930 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1930 OF 2024 (439)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. CHANNAKESHAVA, @ CHANKESHA ALIA @ G.M.MAHADEVA, S/O. LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT GOWDAGERE VILLAGE, MALLURU HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 108.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SOWMYA D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY M.K. DODDI POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA DIST, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP., ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.72/2023 OF M.K.DODDI P.S., RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S/302,201,397 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12907 CRL.P No. 1930 of 2024

¶18

HONBLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA C/C III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAMANAGARA NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.684/2023 AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking on regular bail in M.K.Doddi Police Station, in Crime No.72/2023 registered in C.C.No.684/2023, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge Judge and JMFC, Channapatna, for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302, 397, of I.P.C.

¶22

The Brief case of the prosecution are that the complainant is son of the deceased and he is residing in Bangalore and he used to visit his mother occasionally. On 17.08.2023, his sister called him reporting that his mother is not responding calls and even on 18.08.2023, when he called, she did not respond to the phone calls.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12907 CRL.P No. 1930 of 2024

¶24

However, on 18.08.2023 between 10.30 to 10.45 a.m. in the morning, she received a telephone message from one Sri.Channakeshava, the neighbour of her mother's house who informed that, the mother was found dead. Immediately, the complainant, his brother and sister went to the spot and saw the dead body of their mother lying on the divan-cot with ligature mark around her neck. It is alleged that earlier during her lifetime, their mother had informed that neighbour, Sri.Channakeshava, used to fight with her for silly reasons and they suspected him for causing her death. It is further alleged that amount received from leasing coconut trees was also found missing along with her earrings. Hence, complaint was lodged against the petitioner and on the basis of the complainant FIR came to be issued. The petitioner is said to have been arrested on 22.08.2023 and it is alleged that at his instance a sum of Rs.29,500/- and two earrings belonging to the deceased were recovered along with his adharcard. Hence, the investigation officer, submitted charge sheet after completion of the investigation for the

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:12907 CRL.P No. 1930 of 2024

¶27

offences punishable under Section 397, 302, 201 of IPC. The petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Session Judge has rejected his bail petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent/State. Perused the records.

¶29

The undisputed fact is that the mother of the complainant was murdered and a complaint was lodged only on suspicion against the present petitioner. The other undisputed fact is that the petitioner was the neighbour. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution is required to prove the circumstances linking each other so as to complete the chain of the circumstances. The allegations made in the complaint itself discloses that the petitioner is said to have reported the death to the complainant over telephone. However, no call details were obtained by the investigation officer to show that the petitioner has called the complainant reporting the death in the morning as

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:12907 CRL.P No. 1930 of 2024

¶32

alleged. When it is a circumstantial evidence, each

¶33

circumstance becomes a relevant aspect.

¶34

Apart from that the allegations of the

¶35

prosecution is regarding recovery of the golden rings and cash of Rs.29,500/- from the custody of the petitioner. But, even there is no evidence or statement of the witnesses recorded to show that the golden rings recovered were belonging to the mother of the complainant i.e. the deceased and were identified. The complainant and her brother ought to have identified the earrings and it is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that these earrings belonged to the mother of the petitioner, who is aged. Even in the complaint though there is specific allegations regarding receiving of the amount by leasing coconut trees, no evidence is placed to show to whom it was leased and what was the amount received in this regard. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence. The

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:12907 CRL.P No. 1930 of 2024

¶38

investigation is already concluded and charge sheet has already been submitted. The petitioner is in custody and his presence is no more required by the investigating agency. Considering these facts and circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioner on regular bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

I. The petition is allowed .

¶41

II. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in

¶42

Crime No.72/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302 & 397 of I.P.C, on he executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, subject to following conditions:-

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:12907 CRL.P No. 1930 of 2024

¶45

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

¶46

ii. The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;

¶47

iii. The petitioner shall appear before the Court, on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.

¶48

iv. He shall co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

AMM

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Channakeshava Alias Chankesha Alias G M Mahadeva v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Channakeshava Alias Chankesha Alias G M Mahadeva 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

Dinesha. B. N. Vs State of Karnataka by

Harish Naika @ Harisha Vs State by Kumsi Police Station

Sri. Vedant Pathak Vs State of Karnataka by

Shri Vijay Kumar a Vs the State of Karnataka by

Amjad Khan @ Amju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mallesh Vs State by