IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF JANUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8477/20 10 BETWEEN: 1. Shivaji, Sb Somappa Gayakwad, Aged 35 years, 0cc: Agriculture, Rio itigatti, Dharwad. . . . PETITIONER (By Shri S.S.Patil, Advocate) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka Represented by SPP, Dharwad through Dharwad Rural Police Station. .. . .RESPONDENT (By Shri V.S.Kulkarni, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Dharwad Rural Police Station Crime No.263/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 302. 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code. This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, the court made the following: ORDER Heard the counsel for the petitioner. 2. On the strength of a complaint by one Laxrnawwa, wife of Mahadevappa Desai, the Dharwad Rural Police had registered a case against the petitioner and others in Crime No.263/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 301 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that accused no.1, who is the complainant’s brother and accused no.2, who is her sister-in-law were not on good terms. There was a dispute between them as regards sharing of the family property. During the life time of the complainant’s father, the complainant and her sisters had received Rs. I 0,000/- each, as their share out of the sale proceeds of the family properties and after the death of the 3 complainant’s father, the complainant and her sisters had got their names mutated in respect of 1 acre each, of the family properties. This angered accused no.1 who threatened the complainant that he would go to any length to destroy the peace in her family. ft is the further case that on 11.92010, her son went out to celebrate the Ganesha festival, but did not return and when a search made for him proved futile, a missing complaint was filed before the police on 15.9.2010. ft is on 18.92010, that one Yallappa Mushappanavar, who is cited as CW. 11 came to the complainant and stated that the four accused persons had taken the deceased Manjunath to the land of one Mahadevappa and had murdered him and that he was present all along, but he had been threatened with dire consequences if he informed anybody about the incident and therefore, he had mustered courage only on 18.9.2010 to reveal the incident. ft is on this, that further investigation was completed by the police and a charge-sheet was filed. 4 It is the case of the prosecution that during the stage of investigation, the statements of 22 witnesses have been recorded, and CW.ll is the eye witness who had narrated the incident and therefore, there was a prima facie case made out against the petitioner. The court below has accepted the case of the prosecution that if the present petitioner is to be enlarged on bail, there is likelihood of him tampering with the said witness and thereby hampering the prosecution agency and it is also possible that he may escape from the long arm ofthe law and therefore, has rejected the application for bail. It is in this background that the present petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner straight away would highlight the fact that there is no overt-act attributed to the petitioner and even according to the eye witness, it is one other who is actually said to have hit the deceased with a club and thereby, possibly may have caused his death and therefore, S 5 the petitioner was only named as an accomplice and the petitioner shall abide by any other terms that may be imposed. 4. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the court below having treated the petitioner as being on par with the accused, against whom an overt-act has been attributed may result in depriving the freedom ofthe petitioner, unfairly. Accordingly, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail and therefore, he shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with a solvent surety for a like sum. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigation agency as and when required. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without the leave of the court. The petitioner shall not make an attempt to influence or threaten the prosecution witnesses, if any. The petitioner shall attend the trial on every date of hearing and shall not cause any impediment to the expeditious disposal ofthe case. 6 The petition stands allowed accordingly. Sd! JUDGE fly