IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUET BENCH AT DI-IARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY 01:' JULY, 2009f" « .. » A' BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE J:=.AWAD@ 4' 'V 'A CRIMENAL pE'r1'1*1o1\yg~_l:o.7523Q_og_9_l' " BETWEEN: Urneshagouda @ Urnesh S/o. Chennappagouda Patil,__ A Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture B'fi;;s:lnesé, = R/o. Yerikoppa.Vi1lage,..I;7_ " ,: " Tq. 85 Dist.Dhai'\_;va::_1_.';.V_ (By Sri s.s;l.Vaéa;1rr§iath;7'1éi'c::%P;:'_' AND: The State of Kar11atak.a; 'By Vidyagirir Police ' S.tatior1,v RepreseIite_d,by.State **** 'Public _,Pro_secu.t1 * A A (By Sri"'P.Hr-.'Go'tl§lhindi, Advocate) W PETITIONER RESPONDENT
or .eThislV”‘C:2rirninal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
“by the Advocate for the petitioner praying that this
ll :l_Hor1’lble Court may be pleased to enlarge the
logical end that accused is the prime offender and others are
his accomplices and he has filed charge–sheet.
5. The petitioner who is taken to custo.djgi}f:”»i.sV
have given voluntary statement, which leclito
motor vehicle and other articles _which includes. 1 blood
stained clothes. His plea for bail wa.s°rejecte’d.considering the
incriminating aspects noticetladurling iirnlrestigation. “iiThis is his
second attempt.
6. Learflned ‘petitioner would contend
that the p.e’titio.r_ie’:r b’een.iarrestedi only suspiciously and
there is no”‘eye.witness:’ He submits that merely
because therehwasr 1itigati.oi1r_relating to land between him and
–the deceased, the .petiti_o_r_1_er had been implicated. He refers to
the c’o–mplain.t*«in’– which the complainant has clearly averred
thatrhe,wiasR_’not’j;;.ih a position to know who committed the
crime. lri–iAtiailj.iz FIR was registered against the unknown
if pVe.rsoI1,_’_buVt” later the name of the petitioner has been shown.
iifurther submits that there is no direct material against the
3°”
6
petitioners to bring the nexus between his act and the death of
Basavanagouda.
7. Opposing all the contentions, the lVear_n’ed
Government Pleader seeks rejection of the petition.
8. Keeping in mind the ._ urged;
examined the records. Firstly, must notice’dAi’thati’theriii
comp1ainant~Eranna Mahadevappafingadi beipresent
with the deceased when ,_the p.Al’actiye i””incident’*’ occurred.
According to his version, the ‘5c_¢upafi’ts o_fdth’e…ma_ruti van tried
to imbalance lhirnuitnore:fthar’1.once before he reached the village.
They succeedediin agai.nis’t__ithe motor cycle due to which
the complainant’.ifel.l. HeA.p’an:_i”cked and rushed from the spot
leaving bi;-hin’d Basian=ag_o_iida. Only when on return he found
Basan’agouda«.w’i.th*injuries and the motor vehicle had already
left i such statement, there is no direct
indictment of the petitioner by name or identity. But what
“tr’a.nspi;red later on, is of importance. The investigating officer
number plate of the vehicle No.K.A-25/P680. After
seizizig it, he verified regarding the ownership, which led to one
at/X
Krishna Hanurnanthappa Goudar, who gave categoric
statement that it was the petitioner who had taken the vehicle
on the pretext of fixing the CD. It would therefore show4’th:ati_at_
relevant point of time, the vehicle was in the possession”ofg:’thé’.._. .
petitioner.
9. The second aspect noticeciiis orirthe.
the voluntary statement, his blood”–‘staine’d Vclothes been
seized along with axe. The seizure yoflo’iood.;staine’diclothes and
axe from the custody of the Vf3etit.ion_e;~ -out sufficiently
strong case against him requ’irin’g his’,expii_anat’ion. Since the
said articles had’ sl1ibjelc’t.c–to FSIi,wthere is material directly
pointing tovvards the.act,iof~._the=’accused and the incident in
question, _Mere’ly nbeicause. his name is not mentioned in the
i,.\=–grO~1.}1’1d to “show liberal approach towards the
ac’cus:ad’; ‘ _ ” . ‘
u “iflgeiillthat as it may. This is only a tentative
._T”asaessimenti”of the material to find whether the grant of bail is
jujstiiied§AA I am satisfied that the material collected by the
‘prosecution indicates that pre–plan and pre~meditatioi1 to
3*”