IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CRICUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 01" DAY OF FEBRUARY,..A4;ZO1V0:J '
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE AI<.ALIIO1ON~AGARA3AV
CRIMINAL PETITIo"H,EN~Q%.7016/2oIVOOvI_E
BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Pravin ' '
S/0 Prakash Shinde
Age: 19 yea_rs,.__0cc':' V'
R/0 KoEna"Exte-nsio:n
Shinde__.Nag4a ragi
Mahara:sVht.;.a'_,VState _
2. Sri';Mahe=:.'r;I_V .4 .
s/o Shankar5'5}§ra'3?e"<__
Age: 19 years; £3cc':--~.St'Lur:E'ent
R/0 H";N0;5, S SVGa'ua"g';e Chawl
Pa_rsEwad'i_,_Gh.ai:ko'par"
,,.r:i/Q!um~bai ' ,
- a ma rashtra State
V. n.d"afi.wade, Adv)
AND:.__r
'E State of" Kérnata ka
}'3y*TCTh..E4_kod'E Pofice Station
' 'i'dQ'e\.:_}Te'p by HCGP
.,":(ByI%sri:A.R.Pat:I, Addl. SPP)
=-~..(""""""'°'"'
PETITIONERS
RESPONDENT
This Cr|.P is fiied under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
praying to grant bail to the petitioners in SC No.361/2-Q09
on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Chikodviutwith
conditions in Crime No.2S0/2009 registered
offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,
read with 149 of IPC by the respondent Chii<_odi~..po-lice
station.
This CrE.P is coming on for OrdA_ers:.th.ifs ‘d.a3’r,..’the’flseiurtiv. .9
made the following:
onben, g g
Accused Nos.4 and in AS-esRsio–n’s’-»_C.aseA’i\io…36:i/2009
pending on the file of the’A’_!_ea’r’ne:’d::’ Officer, Fast
Track Court-I, Chikitodi petition
under Section”‘4’3i.9 ».me ‘é.tiri_ier bail petition filed
by theseviiaiccueecl sesvswions case came to be
rejected the order dated 19.12.2009.
Therefore, they have.’-mAo.ve”d the present petition.
9′ vistated in brief the case of the prosecution as
cou.id’–.befrom the police papers, copies whereof
A are fu”i’nis’heo”‘ the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor
9’ ” V as: under:
a) Accused No.1 was the wife of
deceased Rajendra. Accused No.2 is her sister.
,……:r*r””*r*–
has been filed against all the accused Nos.1 to
for the offences under Sections 302, 201,
1203 read with Section 149 of IPC. Th_e””s’a.icjjv….j:_7
sessions case is now at the stage of fiayminjg
charge against the accused fovr<the.saicl_" offgejncesi
3. It is not in dispute that téhiereiis no.”,e_;vid’er1ce1–y 0′
any eye witness to the incident”of”;nurder’-owfthe decewased
alieged to have been comnjitteciby’ Nos’.’4 and 5 at
the instance of accused 3_..:_a–rifg’.therefore, the
entire case rests. ci.rcuirnstan’tia«IiAeti.ideVnce.’
4. Sri..M}.f3:’;§uni:l_a–wade,::niearined Counsel for the
petitioners-acciused…V_s:trorigi_i’y.,._contended that there is no
circumstance of ‘the”«ide,_céa_se.d being iast seen in the
company of these _ac’cus’ed Nos.4 and 5 nor is there any
‘V;_c’i’rcum”stah’ce recover any incriminating materiai from
th”erii«.ipuirs-uiannt tfotheir volunta ry statements and therefore
these”-peti_tion;ers~accused deserve the grant of bail. He
contended that the police obtained the custody of
A “trh’e.se».a..ccused I\ios.4 and S on 18.01.2010 i.e., after the
0% ’11’ ch,a.rgehseet was submitted and the case was committed to
{J____N~{-2.»-\_____,.-<
the sessions Court and then they coilected some further
evidence against these accused and therefore,
evidence cannot be considered against "
submitted that the grant of po|ice"i'ic-ustody
Nos.-4 and S itself is illegai and th.er:efore the
coliected by the investigating -.o'f€icer A.by.__ obta'i.hi'"ng"'"these
petitioners-accused to their cusgtordygvcahnot be roadsagainst
these petitioners-accused.'
S. Per;"'Co¢ntra,. Acidi. State
Public that though there is
no last seen with
these accusedVor:_'t.h.eV_bcir.curn'stance of recovery of any
incriminatingrn?J_feria'i fr'orn":them based on their voluntary
._f"V"staterné'nt:_s.,. there is "" "ample evidence coiiected by the
during investigation to show that these
two'a.ccused"p:ei'sons were with accused i\los.1 to 3 during
periodgt'-rom 08.06.2009 to 11.06.2009 and therefore,
i..t"i'iere_g "are ciinching circumstances connecting these
-flasccused petitioners with the murder of the deceased.
(
fail in line with the voluntary statement of accused No.3
that accused Nos.3 to 5 together stayed in thjefsaidvfl
lodgings on 08.06.2009, 09.06.2009 and 10.05;§2009s’ét&.;*f’~
Further, the statement of one Moha_n…th_e owner”of’;Agar’wa|’r-._V it
Stores at Miraj goes to show that a:§;’cu’sed*._Nos.3:V’
together went to his shop oniV__’G~9z.O6′.2v-Oi(J9. _be.tw=e_en»..8~;330
and 9.00 p.m. and purchased further,
the statement of one who is working
in Motor Garageggoges to’ Nos.3 to 5
together satidugawrage on the night
of Vierit the said place at
about ‘t
9. _ TheV_:staternents: of other witnesses transpire
‘x”i:hat accused””‘I\ios.4 and 5 were found in the
Nos.2 and 3 during that relevant
pericsd. Tvhetipcistmortem examination report reveals that
Vi’~,.«.4_’death ofvlthe deceased was due to head injuries, which
co_u!d_uh’ave been inflicted on the deceased by hitting with
-.._flcriciE:et stumps.
10. Thus, it is ciear from the statements of various
chargesheet witnesses recorded prior to 18.()1.2(}_’i~{):’_”‘t_|:1’e.,’4
date on which the police obtained the custody_.A4*uf
Nos.4 and S that accused Nos.2 and..».3._wer_é” in
Nos.4 and 5 during the reievant pleriosfi”ciuriirig_v”w_hicVh[:”i.h§?1.i.1
deceased was done to death.”V__VF’u..rther’,’- are
sought to be proved fhy they_…i:ofi’osecutio.n the
statements of chargesheetiw.i.tn.e_sse.sfali in iine with
the voiuntary sta_tenjentA”g’ive:n involving
accused Nos_._-4. not constitute
confessionoi No.3 or of any of the
other accused as”tnf’-the.srniu,rder of deceased.
:t1_, to the stagiéé: at which the accused may be
;_vj””~g1Veni.jt$b custody oi thepoiice, Sri.Gundawade, the iearned
Vtounseis. t4h’es.:p.etitioners has cited the decision of the
Suorenie AIR 1992 SC 1768 (Central Bureau of
ii..,_’.lEr:vestig;zvtiiJn, Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi Vs
zirmpénq J Kuikarni) and AIR 1994 sc 1447 (Kosanapu
_y__”‘i?anJreddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others). AS to
«
the further investigation, the iearned Addi. SPP has reiied
upon the decision of the Hon’b|e Supreme Court reViia»ofir’t.ed
in zoos CrI.L.J 337 (Dinesh Dalmia Vs c.s-.1). _
to say that since the question of further
that of giving the accused to police, cu,stociy4’*is’:n.ot- 4i’n’v:e_i_Véed it
in this petition, I need not disc:._;_ss atieizgth r:),r_i.Vncij’p|es
laid down in the said decisEons.vHV« ‘ _
12. Further, is at the stage
of framing of charge. be said that
there would disposai of the
said catse.
13. V”¥F_40ii’_ff’ie.’t’V.ife’a§t;n’S aforesaid, I am of the
considered opinioniithai: petitioner Nos.1 and 2 who are
.res«pecti_\ke.|,y’-accused Nos.4 and 5 in the said sessions case
iiooiinot grant of baii. Hence, the present
-V petition i-srejécted.
Sd/-3
I UDGE
” ‘”*’bgn/–