1
IN THE HIGH COURT 0}?' KARNATAKA AT eg;:<I(;;z:L;-C§§{i::_. ' %
DATED THIS THE: 315'? DAY OF .1' 13) 4
BEFORE; ' ' ' _ V
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE
CRIMINAL PE:r1T1:3N.._No. 2:38': QF ' %
emweew; V' " V' ' 1
S/0 Hakim Sabl
Aged about 22 years,. ' T _
Residing at No.91? 4mWCI"QSS,. 1
Ramrahimnag_ar,__ _ -
Mandya Dis§i'ricf;;,.e-' " _ Petitioner
[By Sri . B ..i*0f"vSIVi M . Parthasarathy
and Sr)' .Ad\"re-.e;aH1E_eé}
AND
State of Ke:.fnata1;aA,"«._b'
Re1_:§resented"by V
Mé;&:dmfPo11ce,""'- --------
, Malxdya District. Respondent
A Sr:4.:(EE,:\zi.:.S§iniVasa Reddyg HCGP}
'1"hiSA«:'*'Cirimina} Petition is ffied under Section 439
CR.9.C';_ praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
--- ..Cer:me'~N0.4«73/2010 of Maddur Poiiee Station" Mandya
forfhe offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201
_<::f EPC,
'i'h:£s Criminai Fefitiem eemirsg fer erciers en Ehie
V H "€§8.}?§ the {?{)i3};"§ rizaée the feliezvirzg/__;
=5'
1
5
em
gig///,ee
9
ORDER
In this petition filed under
the petitioner who has been arteeigneti
in C.C.No.IO2’7/10 on the file éofhthe :s’1§;gg§iuht;g
registered for the offences”on’r3isheb’1e_
143, 12o(B), 302, 379.gnde2o L {PC has
sought for an order
2. T the brief is as under:
One ffsiliiyaiah resident of
and one Girish were
habitn’aIVV’ fivere involved in several theft
cases anct:f*they,i;1se’d to’ commit theft of valuables like
go1<:i'Va'n*(i'Vthey used to dispose of the stolen
=véi1uab§e"o'ftt.ieies through accused No.1 and others. The
said \7enk:;tesha was not visiting his house regularly
and 'i;Vs€:d to remain outside for months together and
sonie times he used to return home after several
Aioienths. As the said Venkateshe. did not return home
Vt Vofor near}}; 1%; yeafs prize to }5.8,2GIQ9 the said
Biliéyeiah iodgeé; :5: :'e;:«::§"te <aJith the EEG, Eviaddar ?eEiee
'x
5 's x, /u
a///,
3
Station reporting missing of his son \?enl;a’tesh_£L:M_
the basis of said report, the police registered ii;-,
Crime No.473/10 for rnissingflof
investigation. During investigation, it xvasi-‘eVealed’3 th;«1t’g
the said Venkatesha and used to
dispose of the stoleVr1..prope’1’tics;tlirougnléicciilsed No.1
and others. On petitioner and
others, it xxfas-Lrevealetlgxlvlfenkatesha and
Girish Wa:_nted__ of Vqnlslntity of gold which
they sought the assistance
of acenseclll accused No.1 along with
other eiocoseci “Vn2iltcl3:.et1:élJficonspiracy to eliminate said
Vengkatesho Girlsh and then to take away the gold
x¥zllitol1’\\e'{h?;};intended to dispose of and in pursuance of
‘ec¥nspiVf”rVaoy, when said Venkatesha and Girish
elp~prog:e’1eé:ilaceused No.1 with the gold intended to be
ncltsposecl of, accused No.1 with the help of other
l’ ae.c_t:secl tool: those two persons in 3 Marathi Van, killed
flooth ‘Jenkstcsha and Glrish by strangulating them?
t,hre:ai the dead bodies into the $§:nsh22 rivet’, took ezway
ihe geld which was in the poeseeeien
Venkateeha and distributed the
*:heI:1se1Ves. During invesiigaiie;1″e§ -the -eaeeg? if _wa::~f{‘aEee
reveaied ihai: this pefitiener «.
eonfeseien before his UneIe–.__E:’e:1feesiI1g’ the e’e1§%i:::issier:”
ef the offence. After eemgaletiiig t§f1e”vi.11Ve’§etigatior1,
charge sheet eame tcftzeelaidf j.
4. I have A Rae, Iearned
001111861 learned Counsel for
the Reddye learned
High Fieacier appearing for the
respendefit~V_’Stai-_e;A’-.15e:’;esed the records made available.
_5.v.$:i;E3.C.Seetharama Rae contended as under:
V’ stage, there is absolutely me evidence
te”~«.}:>ri:§’:a estabiieh the eempiieity ef the petitiener
Ahe2*eirzati1 the afleged murder of 2 perseee, therefore the
-,,Vpefi§§ieI:er fie eeiiiied te be enéargeci en eai}; that even
_§’1°eI31 file eemeate ef the reper: Zedgefi by the fame: ef
‘éenkaeeelaae saié Eferzkaieeha ueeé iie reezaie euieide fer
5
months together and in the absence of
corpus delicti it cannot be presumed _€:h;frt:–v..Vt}:Aose t3Wo__V
persons have been dene to de;:th,_Hé1sg§;«ueh;»._e;i:>;;o1fite1§*’
there are no materials to _attra1ctWf,he ooffcrrce L-§r1″<ier*a
Section 302 IPC; that ever: case'-of oroeechutiorr
is accepted at its faee. value'; eteSi'g11*e:d to this
petitioner is that 'A by deceased
Venkatesh the'~?,S_t,ote1T;«hifiroperties and in
turn Veceused No.2 who in
turn #a_.rre;rig§e'c3f:<.f:or_ stolen property as
such;th._ereVhie.–a,h'eoiu.te}y no evidence to indicate that
accuseo7._ in the alleged murder of
Venkateshe that even as per the allegations
the proeecution in the charge sheet, it was
aC:c1i:;e'd._V 'Noe,.,';i to 6 who strangulated the deceased
pe-r_sor_1e~ Keith towels and since, accused Nose to 6 have
AAa1rea:<£y«:'been enlarged on haii, the petitioner herein is
'e;1t§?:ied to be enlarged or: bail on the prirxcipie of parity.
5. Gr: the other harrsi. Srifirirrivase Reedy
eerrterzctect as errfier:
6
That the evidence on record f}2,e’ie
establishes that the two deceased pereehe.
seen in the Company of thie pet1ti:>.rie:~–.a1igi, “otVhe’r
accused and the extra judicial e0i1t’e_ssion’i:1Aaa:ie~ b3;i;his.,’
petitioner before his Une1e”‘–1:ifima the
complicity of this V spetitiorieri.n_:iri°’»ithe eijvmrriission of
murder 01’ two deeeéaéecii “f’».: that though the
COFPUS d€1iCfCi.1D1aiS evidence on
record prima he is _eetab1ish eommiesiori
of rn1ir<;1_er"'~:;i;"*tx1'is;{,g' petitioner along with
OiZh€15vVaC§?i1e€i€iVVpei*SQ1ié}'.._J§l"i€i'€fQI'€: having regard to the
materiaie iavaiiiahie' reeord, at this stage, there are
reaeor:ah1e.V gifeuhda te believe that the petitioner is
Otiehees aiieged and since the offences
the petitioner is punishable with death
01'"=lif€_§f}Ci.p§'iSOf1II1f3f1f he is not entitled for grant at hail:
xthatzhaving regard to the ease of the preeeeutieh that
-.,Vthen5petitieher and ether aeeused have aiready de$t.re}Ied
h .. impertant part ef the evicieriee by t.hrewirig the fieaei
heaies te the river whi::h has ieci the Ci€i§’§’,}”ii{?i’,i{}iE iii’ the
7
evidence, if this petitioner is enlarged en ~«tiie1fe:.._ieg_
every poesibility of this petitioner i€:1I”Ilpt’3l71}1″1»§;,.:3FOS€Cli{iQll”.. ”
evieienee and there is also likeliheedjjef
fleeing away from justice as thereis grim pi-espeet ef”i’iis’=
cenvietion, therefore the petitiener lei ~ne’te -entitlecl to be
enlarged on bail.
7. I have’–bestQWedfimy*ieerieue’lleensideratioris to
the submiseioiiell iifnacie by thejj-ietartielcl counsel on both
sides.
V8, “Not stage, the case of the
proseeutiori -rests A1ajlr1*…eireumstantial evidence. Of
ec:.’u§rfse__L’evjen aiiiieerding to the ease of the prosecution,
‘ ‘de1ieti___of the two alleged deceased persons have
H reeenzered, It is the specific ease ef the
presieeiitiheti that the two pereons were done to death
n€§e;}Q:l1’tVVNl 5% years prior to the report lodged by the father
Vlenkateehe arid the dead bodies were thmwzi iiiite
_..Simsha river wliere heavy water eiirrente were passing
33 2:. result ef which the twe deeti eediee have beet:
8
washed away and they have not been traced, Ae.e’e;ding
to the ease of the prosecution, the three eiIj_eni13.vstei’neeVs
which have been pitted against this petitioners it
(1) the two deceased personsv.;it}er’e
company of this petitioner and other acettseti “pe’;’s”ons’a
(2) the extra judicial confession» rnadehf’thisizgetitioner
before his Uncle (Ehviiireeovery of
certain silver and viifiéliitsuant to the
voluntary been made by
accused of Alia Baksh
at that this petitioner
had en’ confession before him and
thereby he’e_orife.sse’d of having eernmitted the murders
– ofvt..t{e:;”tv;oe’2tsons Véitith the assistance of other accused
:je:5Vsene.,:AhaIiC§-thereafter taking away the gold from the
the deceased and disposing of dead bodies
enct epgiropriating’ the proceeds among themselves. The
ezmiienee on record also prime faete indieaties that the
so ,,’.tva;e deeeeseo persons were East seen in the eoinpany ef
the aeeesed persons just, prior to the §L§i’§G§”?éfd date <3?
9
commission sf the 0fl’en<:e. Having regard to t,}ie*eia:.se.._'oi"
the prosecution at this stage, there \x!a.s'alre3;el§:l
attempt tn destroy the €Vid€1'lC€.rE'i€;IT1€'l};'-'Z. thfneeing the
dead bodies into the river. Therel'ei'e';'l
apprehension of the proseeutien regatdingl vt:ann;p'e1*ing the"
prosecution evidence, .Cannot–uibLe_ l"h.y.:.1Sh§ed aside.
Accerding to the ease ii:1i'–,,f:ihe person before
whom this petiti__one:f;"VV's9.iel: extra. judicial
eenfessionhs» the possibility of
this pefiliqfiei' evidence cannot
be nilecl' tegard to the facts and
circumstances at this stage, I am of the
CO}'1_i:S3»ltIl€fF€Cl oj3'i'n_iQn that this is not a fit ease for exercising
.' "the diseAref;iA€)'h by granting bail to this petitioner.
.lnj–n.the circumstance of the ease, the petitioner is
net e*:iti'tlee:i to be enlarged on bail: Hence the petition is
" it yjejetéteel.
5%/E3
ZEEGE