- 1 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.101577 of 2024 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE23D DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION No.101577 OF2024BETWEEN: MAHANTESH SHIRUR S/O. MAHADEVAPPA SHIRUR, AGED39YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF VITHAL MANDIR, JANATA COLONY, DUMMAWAD, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD58000. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AVINASH M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, DHARWAD, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD - 580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. L.S. SULLAD, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN SC No.5100/2022 (CRIME No.97/2022) PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDYANAGAR POLICE FOR OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 120B, 302, R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER
ON2307.2024 COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
S THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 2 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.101577 of 2024 ORDER
Heard Sri. Avinash M. Angadi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. L.S. Sullad, Special Public Prosecutor for respondent.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking regular bail in Crime No.97/2022 of respondent Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). Brief facts of the case are:
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the complaint came to be registered by the complainant stating that his uncle Chandrashekar Angadi was running an institution namely Sarala Vastu. The accused No.1 and 2 were working in the said company and they have been removed from the institution due to some reasons. The petitioner after coming to know that Chandrashekar Angadi had visited Belagavi to attend some programme - 3 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.101577 of 2024 and obtained permission from Chandrashekar Angadi to meet him.
4. Accordingly, on 05.07.2022 around 12.45 p.m., the petitioner went to the hotel President where Chandrashekar Angadi had stayed and requested him to come down to the reception. When Chandrashekar Angadi came to the reception, the accused No.1 and 2 on the pretext of taking blessings from Guruji, stabbed indiscriminately and committed murder. Immediately after the incident, they ran away from the spot. After coming to know the said fact, the complainant lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police. The jurisdictional Police registered a case in crime No.97/2022 for the offences stated supra. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case.-. 4 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.101577 of 2024 The CCTV footage would not disclose the identity of the faces of the persons who assaulted Chandrashekar Angadi.
6. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offences stated supra, prima facie, they have not made out a case against the petitioner. The petitioner is the earning member of the family and he will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition. To substantiate his contention, he relied on the following judgments: i) In Crl.A.No.2078/2023 between Rohit Bishnoi V/s The State of Rajasthan and Another. ii) In Crl.A.No.70/2022 between Ishwarji Nagaji Mali V/s State of Gujarat and Another. iii) In Crl.A.No.658/2022 between Imran V/s Mr. Mohammed Bhava and Another. iv) In Crl.A.No.1248/2005 between State through C.B.I and Amaramani Tripathi. v) In Crl.A.No.324/2004 between Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V/s Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another.-. 5 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.101577 of 2024 vi) In Crl.A.No.601/2017 between Virupakshappa Gouda and Another V/s The State of Karnataka and Another. vii) In Crl.A.No.1168/2023 between Ansar Ahmad V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and Another. viii) In ILR1990AR3544 between Shivarame Gowda V/s State of Karnataka.
7. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor filed statement of objection and submitted that the successive bail application filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained without their being any changed circumstances. The act of the petitioner has been recorded in the CCTV attached to the President Hotel. The footage has been seen by the wife of the deceased and she identified the accused persons. In addition to the identification, there are eye witnesses to the incident namely CW-22 to 29.
8. It is further submitted that there are 56 injuries were found on the body of the deceased would indicate the barbaric and heinous act of the petitioner. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is imminent threat to the - 6 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.101577 of 2024 witnesses and also family members of the deceased. Since, it is gruesome murder, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
9. After having heard the learned counsel for respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, the following points are required to be considered while dealing with the bail application in a heinous offences, they are: a) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believed that the accused had committed offence. b) Nature and gravity of the accusation. c) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. d) Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing away from justice, if released on bail. e) Character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused. f) Likelihood of the offence being repeated.-. 7 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.101577 of 2024 g) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced. h) Danger of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. These are all the points to be considered while granting bail in a heinous offence.
10. In the present case, the petitioner killed the deceased on previous enmity. The manner in which he committed murder itself would indicate that, how he had grudge against the said deceased. No doubt, it is a pre-planned murder. The petitioner and another went to meet Guruji with weapons and stabbed him and caused 56 injuries on him. The act of committing the murder is not only a sensational issue, but also, caused havoc in the society at large.
11. The family members of the said Guruji are expressing their anguishness and fear about their lives. Be that as it may, of course, the Court has to see the liberty of an individual while considering the bail petition.-. 8 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.101577 of 2024 However, the liberty of an individual is not absolute and the said liberty has been restricted with reasonable restrictions. The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. The society expects the responsibility and accountability from the member and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished Social norm.
12. In the present case, the act of the petitioner in committing murder of Chandrashekar Angadi has been established not only by the eye witnesses but also other documentary evidences. The manner in which the petitioner committed murder of Chandrashekar Angadi itself would suffice to reject the bail. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, it is not fit case to grant bail.
13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - NC:
2024. KHC-D:10378 CRL.P No.101577 of 2024 ORDER
The petition stands rejected. Sd/- JUDGE RKM CT:ANB