High Court Karnataka High Court

Vishwanath vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Vishwanath vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2011
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana
E

IN THE HIGH COURT 0%' KARLWATAKA AT BAE§§'{;;:'$LQ}:{:':E.v  _

DATED THIS THE) 2% DAY C)?' JUNE. Cf .
BEFORE-'   '

THE HQNBLE MR.JUS'I'i£CE K.i§f;K:a'é'HAv;5;N;5u*2;a:iA2§f;2&

CRIMINM 1>E:T:T10;:;:g§ze. 212520? 20:1  
BETWEEN:   V ' ' 

1. Vishwanath S /Q" :<3=;1j: 3§tea1fs,}   H 

Both;  _  V V

Karaiarria figaia,' V i11a 'g=s:§ ' I

Pvi'adb;:Ij;HoBE:';-- Magadi T'a:uk.

Ramakha;;§a.:a'«Di;e:.1;1'iC.t. . j  Petitioners

[By M/  Company, Advocates]

       

 ' Sféd:e_ of VKé;;i1§afaka,
 BVI'_Mag;e?£di P.C§1i.::'€ Station,

Rarizanagaija. District. , $ .Resp0nden1:

 [By §3:i:€§.i\«i.S:*inivasa Raddy, HCGP}

AA   Criminal Petition is filed under Section 43%

 prayirlg :0 ésnlargs the peiitieners an 133%} Er:

Crime No.;222/2013 sf Magadi Poiics Statian.

__§§3.mar:aga:*a, for £316 effencés pumlshabis zznfier

Séciiong EEC! {B} gmd 2392 read with Ssciierz 31% sf EEC'.

{,  /



?  . V V.
This Criminal Petition Coming for or;eet__* §V'eertain properties beiengirig to Gepaiieh,

fathee  CW1 and aeeused. No.3. it is the ease of the

"':V'_Ap:je_e§:eutioi1 that in the baekgground ef this iihviii in

 eeimeetier: with eivil dispute, the eeeueeei gsereene

iermieg themeeivee i}'}i{) am tiriiewfui eeseinbiy by

 ,1 M,,./"
i..;«/



3

sharing common object and by hatching  V'

committed the murder of Ran1aiah.i_'hu_eheii*1d'jV1., Kid

on 13.11.2010 in Kara1amaing.a13.f_"vivildge df 

Taiuk. CWCI on coming  'i<Z§1()'\-VaAI~Lcv}'i;€3i{CVh€ig'Ah.:i1S}§)3}TiCi 

lying dead, went to the spotvdéddéudd ,s,he'  ninfcirmed by

CW2 » Narayanappaizijihat  VV8c'A'3VA.VE1SSau1{€d
by accused Nosii to   :r__C3n the basis of
the said ingfoihqeitioii  complaint on
13.11.2015  police based on
VVhiChv"C€iS€VUi:3fi' 'it; came to be registered
and  up. During investigation,
the peti'vde.1j1ersVVVv'hefdeirzifwere apprehended and when

prQCi«}1'i§édi be.fe:=@'...___§h;f3 learned Magistrate they were

»$}VuhjVec.t:_e<i  _jL1diCia1 custody. A1; the instance of

accused'  igduring investigation, iron rod said to have

beef'; liS€C§',"f{}F cemmission of the efferice eame is be

 feceveredi Aecueeci N033 to 5 who were apprehended

 -.'s;:id_:*'suhjeeied fie judicial custody iziiitiaily, were later

 yfeieaeed err: bziii. During §I1V€S§ig3'{,iOfL. it is revealed

i/he: ea heariiig {'E'i€S ef Remaiahi §X§J'.2 wen: :6; {he

 



place where said Ramaiah was lying and whe_r:._a_ek_eéi 

C\V.2, deceased Rarnaiah made an ""-Qra1V'rrV.ei3z1:1g 7

deelaratier: that he was assaruitcjtfby':1eeuee<i 'E'J.::,}'"$1/'itI*;.

an iron rod on the head. Dtirirrig .inve':s*;igaVtie1§-e;_""the,

statements of material xvitneesfes we;~e1...:ece:dea arncf

after investigation charge ;<§l1-eetv--cé;:1f1e tdbe. filed. The
prayer made by bai} before the
learned Seesioreis_;Jud.ge"Ceirne' t§».beV'-re};Ve'<u:ted. Therefore,

they are befcire  ('3Qju._rt..f0r--..'gr¥:;:nt of bail.

   learrred eourusel appearing for
the peiitroners  High Court Geverrrmerxt

P1ea_C'.erL agrpeering rd:  Respondent "State. Perused

‘ _ th7C—- reeje~.rci’ez made’ éiiraiiabier

iearrred counsel fer the petitioners

eeri’ter1:’ie(ii’ “that, since there are me direct witnesees tea

fhe ailegeé incident emf murder, the entire case of the

‘rpreseeuiierr resets or: eireurrzstantiei eszéderiee arzé

% .. ejbeeluteiy rhere is He rrzzzterizrl re irédiriete the eemeiéeirfg

{sf ;}€fi'[,i{.”;i);€r’$ in {he eernrrrieeierz 05 the efferree,

therefora the peiiiieners ara entitlaad its be r.~r3§e2é;;.sj_e _<i',7f:.§;..A

baii; that Si1'}C€ three ather accused p€1f§;0?':1s '*{2g2*}';§ K

simfiarly piacefi are aireaciy
peiiticeners are 3.159 entit1ec:1 i9 be géxfzlhlzézgged
principie of parity; that in slang V'
standing civii disputéé"p0ss;iEi:1it%§.jfalse 'iiiipiigzatien {if

these petiticners cannot be

5. iiqé iéérned High Court
Gover:1:::§:IiVt. grant of bail and
contended _Aé;i:5f — . ‘ v

t}:ai .afthis«..V$taIg€:;”‘:1fii€%.re are reasonable gmunds to

beiieve i}T1’a1t”*Zh€t._ petitibners herein pursuant to a

<29::$:pi: a;x::§f haié11€_{1,..€:0mmi£ted the murder of deceased

' '2:?3Via;1:<2;g.ia§1'~i;%;A.'§€t;–<é: background (sf the fl1–wi}1 and animosity

as 'L%ecea:§:%::iA'Tand his Wife were seriously cantasting the

Q Civii ..i§'iig1ai;::a::, therefore, at this stage, :here are

» fegagfifibie graurzcis to b€ii€V€ that the petitioners are

U cf the Qfffifiiifi gmmishabie Wiih deaih 0:' life

imgrisanmsni as $:3.r::h ihggs' are :33: a:~::r:i§*£:}ed far @333; that

thgzzgh '§:%1e:*€ €:§f'€ rm éérsci 2¥i1:I:€s§€s fez' EEK: egmmissisn

5%

6

of the offence, the Circumstance prime V.

the complicity of these p€titiDI1,€I:’S”Vi:I;1 the ”

the offence.

6. I have bestowed I11}/_f””eeriotie.__<;::t;si§:Ee3:é§tic>ris :0″

the submissions made C.O.1:1’H.S{31J§OH both
sides. V ‘V « H .

'2'. Of    ehe case of the
proseeuticfii,    witnesses for the

COIHII},iSSHiUI1u.: D’f “a”S suCh the case of the
prosee’§1tio”f1 ‘ evidence. The
materialeeagfi faeie indicates that there is

eiviliei.e1iSputeV”b–eti§,jee:3 Accused No.3 and CW.1 being

. b’§0_therVa11.d ‘eister in respect of certain properties said to

,¥”_1.9:’:i_r_eTA iieft behind by their father Gopaiah.

Th’e-refQfe;v is reasonable to infer that there was ieng

stafidiizgs illwwill and animosity between two families in

‘ ‘eeglzieetiezz with Eand dispute. The {native being deubie

V. …_.ecig’ed weapon E’: eeuld be the basis fer eemmitteimg the

efime 932$ it eeuifi 3381:; be basie {er fefise i:::pEi£:a{:ie:1. A:

7′
this Stage, the materiais on record indicates that at

about 10.30 am. on 13.11.2010 these petiti0:1erV_é§-..;§J-{C1

ethers were found moving on the motor eyeie ~

scene of oeeurrenee where the deieeasecii Ré{‘1:é.fai2ii:,’_”was_V

iying with injuries. This fact haé._i::’eefi*– jgirinia

indicated in the ${at€IU€fitf:’%”Qf CW5. ‘ “The ” L’

statement of CW2 pfii’I1a having
heard screaming of he went there,
he saw Ramafiah; on his head
and on Ramaiah said that he
was aieeeiuitegflg {accused No.1) with an
iron revti. en ,¥)1′.iII1a faeie indicates that the

deceasezi h’ar1v1:)5é_i1,;’~.

N02 in the eemmiseien of the offence. Having regard to

rnateriale availabie on record at this stage, this

ef the opinien that they are no reasonabie.’gr0t;2:1£ii*ei ~

believe that accused N02 is.gui.1_ty’ ei’f4ene’eV uh’

punishable with death or life

being had to the gravity 0fVth%e”~.QVffen”cee,’this of V

the opinion that pet:ti.gner’V.Ne:..1_:’–ie”-not entitletiii for the
relief of bail. Hoxxrexrehnh entitled for the
relief of bail he footing as that
of the have already been
enlarged”O1*::.:.:?3t:tt’:::f:’§V 1; is not entitled for the
prinei;:§}e ef on a different footing

thanthe ntftaei” a.C’euSved”‘§3ersons who have been enlarged

8.’V”.In View of the matter, the petition is

e.1ie’We€t:Vin’?’t3art’ ‘Petitiener N02 (accused No.2) is

V’ efderefi te be enlarged on bail in ecxnneetien with

;£5.C’;Neg4}/11 en the file of the Seesiene Jueige,

Renianegarze etibjeet tie the f{)H{}’§~JiI1§ =f_7{)3″i§i§if§{§}’1£%:

“M . ,, K
XE
&

9

Petitioner No.2 Shed} execute a persona}
bond for a sum of Rs.5C},0OO/’-

(me Surety’ fer the like sum

Satisfaction of the learned %

Judge;

Petitioner No.2 Sh-.:.:3_.11 n{3tV_ii:te:mie;ié;:e.VQr

tamper with the 15’1*Qée”n._i>vii:f1e$e;es

in any mariner;

Petitianer N0;§?.[f v’i:V}:’V’_;ifi3C)S€ of

i1i_{Ies_}Eigatien,€_ShaI_I .a’p’peaz’ before the

3: Iny4es{igatiri”g’i’.’: whenever Called
” -.;ip011a”f:0- C19 “so agnd-‘€:o~<:sperate in the

-. ‘invesftigatidne-f the ease;

‘Pef:it:i0:1ef’-Né.2 shah appear on all
heafitm-€;ates before, the court without

A *..fé:iI__;_

* .}HTe shall not induige in any acts similar

to the ene alieged in the ease;

N0, 2 mark his

with

31331}
the

Petitioner
atiendaenee jurisdietienai

eeiiee an every IS?” sf ezseh eaiezzelar

10

month between £0.00 am. and 2.0Q___

p.m. til} conclusian of ths tiria}.

Petitiezm insofar as it reiates to P{:*’€~i:t:i(:>1f1«:::T1″=

N03 (accused No.1} is dismisssdfi

RS} *