Mahabaleshwar S/O. ...

vs State Of Karnataka on 18 October, 2012

Karnataka High Court

Mahabaleshwar S/O. ... vs State Of Karnataka on 18 October, 2012
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana
:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11343/2012
BETWEEN:
Mahabaleshwar S/o. Channabasappa
Yelalli, Age: 21 years,
Occ: Driver,
R/o. Kallur Village,
Taluk Dharwad,
District: Dharwad.
...Petitioner
[By Shri M.B.Gundawade, Advocate]
AND:
State of Karnataka
By State Public Prosecutor,
Dharwad
Through Kittur Police.
...Respondent
[By Shri V.M.Banakar, A.S.P.P.]
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to release the
petitioner on bail in S.C. No.166/2011 (Bailhongal
Police Station in Crime No.24/2011) for the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of
IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST PA Act, 1989, pending
on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge,
Belgaum.
This criminal petition coming on for orders, this
day, the Court made the following: :2:

ORDER

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140718953/

Mahabaleshwar S/O. ... vs State Of Karnataka on 18 October, 2012

The petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.3 in S.C. No.166/2011 on the file of III Additional
Sessions Judge, Belgaum. He and other accused persons have been charge sheeted for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 201, 404, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST
Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. The accused persons alleged to have committed murder of one
Manoj S/o. Arvind Netrakar resident of Sirsi on 9.2.2011, by forcibly administering him liquor
mixed with poison and thereafter by setting fire to the dead body they tried to destroy the evidence
to screen themselves from legal punishment.
2. According to the case of the prosecution, the deceased Manoj was frequently visiting the house of
CW.22 Smt.Jyoti alias Roopa resident of Sirsi. Accused No.1 Raghu @ Raghavendra also resident of
Sirsi started loving CW.22 though she informed him that she is married and has a son from the said
wedlock. On seeing the deceased Manoj visiting the house of CW.22 frequently, accused No.1 was
under impression that the deceased is coming in the way of his affair with CW.22. Therefore, he
wanted to eliminate the said Manoj. For this, he took the assistance of his friend accused No.5 Anil
as also accused Nos.2 to 4 who are all residents of Kallur Village, Dharwad Taluk. Accused Nos.1 and
5 contacted accused Nos.2 to 4 and told them about the plan to eliminate the said Manoj and in
furtherance of the said plan accused Nos.1 and 5 brought the deceased Manoj to Hubli on 7.2.2011
on the premise that they would get him a job there and thereafter on 9.2.2011, they brought him to
Dharwad and with the help of accused Nos.2 to 4 they took him to Neelgiri Plantation attached to
factory in Dandeli in the vehicle bearing registration No.KA24 M 1341 and there accused No.1 mixed
some poisonous substance to the liquor and forcibly made the said Manoj to consume the same.
Thereafter, accused No.4 dropped a size stone on the head of the deceased and thereafter they set
fire to the dead body with an intention to destroy the evidence and before doing so accused Nos.2
and 3 took away the mobile phone which was in the possession of the deceased. Thereafter accused
No.1 by forging the signature of the deceased encashed money to an extent of Rs.10,000/- on
21.2.2011, Rs.4,000/- on 23.2.2011 from the bank account of the deceased. On seeing some fire in
the Neelgiri Plantation, CW.1 - I.C.Desai working in the Paper Mill, Dandeli went to the place,
extinguished the fire and saw half dead body of an unknown male person. Immediately he lodged a
report in that regard, based on which, case in crime No.24/2011 came to be registered initially
against the unknown persons.
3. During the investigation, on 25.11.2011, accused No.1 alleged to have disclosed the complicity of
this petitioner and other accused persons in the commission of the offence. Based on the said
disclosure, this petitioner was arraigned as accused No.3 and subsequently he was apprehended and
subjected to judicial custody. On completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed by
showing accused No.5 as absconding. The case as against accused Nos.1 to 4 has already been
committed to the Sessions Court. The application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail which came
to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking
the relief of bail.
4. The petition is opposed by the respondent- State.
5. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides. Perused the records made available.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140718953/

Mahabaleshwar S/O. ... vs State Of Karnataka on 18 October, 2012

6. As noticed supra, the complicity of this petitioner said to have been disclosed by accused No.1.
Thus, this petitioner was arraigned as accused in the case on the basis of voluntary statement said to
have been made by accused No.1. According to the prosecution, on apprehension of this petitioner a
mobile phone hand set was recovered and later it was identified as the mobile hand set belonging to
the deceased. Even from the materials available on record, no overt act is attributed against this
petitioner except that he accompanied the other accused to the Neelgiri Plantation where the
deceased was said to have been administered liquor mixed with poisonous substance and he took
away the mobile hand set of the deceased. There are no prima facie materials available on record at
this stage to show that the seized mobile hand set belongs to the deceased. Even according to the
prosecution, at the time of seizure of the mobile hand set, it did not contain any Sim Card. Having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, in my opinion there are no
reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of any of the offences alleged. Therefore,
the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Hence, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in S.C.
No.166/2011 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum on his executing a personal bond
for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned
Sessions Judge and subject to further conditions that:
i) The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any
manner;
ii) The petitioner shall appear on all hearing dates before the Court without fail;
iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any acts similar to one alleged in the case;

iv)

The petitioner shall not leave the

Jurisdictional Court
of
Sessions

without express permission thereof.

v) The petitioner shall mark his attendants with the respondent Police Station on
every 15th of each calendar month between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. till the disposal of
the case.
Sd/JUDGE BS

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/140718953/