IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.8460/2010 BETWEEN: The Madiwalappa S/. Mugappa Hongal Gouri Age: 54 years, 0cc: Agriculture R/o. Hosur, Tal: Saundatti Dist: Belgaum. PETITIONER (By Sri. Srinand A. Pachhapure, Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka By Murgod Police Station Now rep. by SPP RESPONDENT (By Sri. K. B. Adhyapak, AcP This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 OF Cr.P.C seeking to grant bail to the petitioner with conditions in Crime No.58/2010 registered for the offences punishable u/s 341 & 302 R/w 34 of IPC by the respondent Murgod Police. 2 This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Smt. Doddawwa Pundalikappa Hongal had lodged a complaint alleging that the accused and the deceased are brothers and in view of the dispute relating to their properties, on 08.03.2010 it was learnt by the complainant’s brothers Mahesh Viveki and Manjugouda Patil that the deceased was murdered by the petitioner herein. The complainant then went to the spot and identified the dead body of her husband and inquired with one Suvarna Kusalapure as regards the incident and she was informed that the accused persons had together caused the death of the deceased, whereby Madivalappa had assaulted the deceased on his head and face with a “bandi kalaga” and her husband Pundalikappa fell down and died on the spot. The complainant had contacted her brothers, who along -3 with the complainant had lodged the complaint as regards the above incident. It is in that background that the case was registered. 3. It is now the case of the petitioner that, notwithstanding that the prosecution has named three eye witnesses, CWs 6, 7 and 8, the inconsistent statement of those eye witnesses would indicate that there was doubt as to the involvement of the petitioner in the actual commission of the alleged offence. The circumstances that, though the incident had taken place at 11.30 pm on 08.03.2010, the complainant claims that she was informed only on the next morning at 4.00 am would leave room for doubt as to the actual involvement of the accused on the basis of the statement of the so called eye witnesses and therefore, there is scope for granting bail to the petitioner. It is further pointed out that the accused No.2 has been enlarged on bail and since the petitioner as well as accused No.2 are on the same footing, it stands too reason 4 that the petitioner also be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions. Having further regard to the circumstance that the investigation has been completed and there is no likelihood of the petitioner absconding or not making himself available for the trial, it is appropriate that the bail be granted. It is further pointed out that the deceased was the brother of the accused and therefore, there is no reason why the petitioner ought not to be granted the bail. 4. The learned Government Pleader has filed serious objections to the petition and pointed out that in the face of the evidence of eye witnesses who have stated that accused No.2 was the brother of the deceased. He had caught hold of the deceased and the petitioner had assaulted the deceased on his head and face with the bandi kalaga. As per the post-mortem report, the death is due to craneocerebral injuries sustained as a result of blunt force impact on the head and neck area. He would further point out that the investigation has been D completed and charge sheet has been filed. Though the offence has been committed on account of a family dispute, the offence is heinous and also it is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There are chances of the petitioner interfering with the prosecution witnesses. As the death was committed by his brother, it is very likely that the petitioner would seek to induce or threaten the eye witnesses who have categorically made statements as to the involvement of the petitioner and therefore he apprehends granting bail to the petitioner at this point of time would seriously hamper the prosecution’s case and therefore seeks that the petition be rejected. 5. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the contention that the petitioner stands on the same footing as accused No.2 is incorrect. The statement of the eye witnesses is as to the effect that the petitioner was the one who dealt a fatal blow on the deceased. And as pointed by the learned Government Pleader the offence is a heinous one and the possibility of 6 the petitioner interfering with the prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out and as the death caused by the petitioner is that of his brother, it is possible that the petitioner would certainly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses. Therefore the petition is rejected. Sd! JUDGE gab/