SHOBHA RANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No. 1 along with two others. It is alleged by the complainant that his father was a Head Constable at the Malleshwaram Traffic Police Station and that his father was last seen on 6.5.2011 at about 6.30 P.M. and thereafter his whereabouts are not known. After making enquiries at the Malleshwaram Traffic Police Station as to whether his father had reported for duty, the complainant lodged a complaint finally on 8.5.2011 stating that there was something untoward which had happened. Accordingly, a case was registered in Crime No. 83/11 of a man missing. On 15.5.2011, it transpires that the complainant lodged yet another complaint to state that his father P. Vijaykumar, was also engaged in financing business and he had financed one Smt. Shobha Rani, the present petitioner, who is accused No. 1, who had contacted his father on 6.5.2011 and he suspected that she had a hand in his father disappearing. Therefore, on the basis of this additional information, the Investigating Officer had included an offence punishable under Section 364 of IPC and arrested the petitioner on 16.5.2011 and is stated to have recorded a voluntary statement and thereafter altered the case to one for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. On 17.5.2011, the Investigating Officer claims to have made recoveries of a gold chain and finger ring said to be worn by the deceased and three cell phones and a Maruthi Car from the house of the petitioner. It is claimed by the prosecution that she had also showed the place where the murder was committed and the place where the body was taken and burnt at Bangarpet. It is on these grounds that accused No. 2 was also arrested on 17.5.2011 and his voluntary statement recorded. It further transpires that on the complaint of one S. Ramachandrappa, who is said to be the owner of the land in Survey No. 14/3 within the jurisdiction of Bangarpet Police a case had been registered in Crime No. 135/11 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC on the allegation that on his land there was eucalyptus groove which was recently harvested. On 7.5.2011 he had received information that a dead body had been burnt with old tyres, on his land. He had immediately gone there and saw a dead body. It is on that complaint that three sets of keys had been recovered from the dead body and the entire case papers were transferred to the Malleshwaram Traffic Police Station. The complainant had then identified the three sets of keys that had been recovered from the dead body as aforesaid as belonging to his father. It is in this background that the petitioner had filed repeated bail petitions before the trial Court as well as before this Court. In the earlier petition in Criminal Petition No. 1495/12 which was rejected by an order dated 11.4.2012, the primary reasoning of this Court in rejecting the bail petition was that there was material on record to indicate that there were monetary transactions between the petitioner and the deceased and therefore, there was prima -facie material which was a strong circumstance pointing to the possible involvement of the petitioner and therefore, had rejected the bail petition. The petitioner having filed yet another petition in Crl.P. No. 5804/12 that was rejected on 29.11.2012 on the finding that notwithstanding that the petitioner was a woman and was in custody for over nineteen months as on that date, several recoveries having been made on the voluntary statement of the petitioner and the dead body ultimately having been traced at Bangarpet on the basis of the complaint of the owner of the land on which it was burnt and the recovery of keys found on the dead body which belonged to the father of the complainant, the prosecution had a water tight case against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not be enlarged on bail is the reasoning offered. The petitioner thereafter having sought bail on medical grounds before the lower Court the same has now been rejected by an order dated 23.8.2012.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would make yet another attempt before this Court to demonstrate that apart from the voluntary statements of the petitioner and accused No. 2 said to have been recorded, there is no prima -facie material to indicate the involvement of the petitioner. Significantly, accused Nos. 2 and 3 have been enlarged on bail. It is the case of the prosecution that after accused No. 1 enticed the deceased to her house, it was accused No. 2 who strangulated him with a rope and thereafter his dead body was disposed of at Bangarpet by burning the same. If involvement of all the accused was present and if the allegations against the other accused were more serious of having alleged overt acts, it is illogical that the petitioner is sought to be denied bail. The allegation that the petitioner had financial transactions with the deceased is not a singular situation. The record would indicate that the deceased though was a Head Constable was indulging in financial transactions with various people including the petitioner. There was no unusual connection between the petitioner and the deceased. The allegation that she was running a brothel was also not established with any material placed on record. Therefore, he would submit that notwithstanding the fact that this Court has taken a view that prima -facie material was available, he would plead that there be a relook at the matter. Though the voluntary statements would be relevant insofar as the recoveries having been made, the voluntary statements would not also support the allegation of overt acts alleged against the petitioner and others and would plead that the petitioner being a woman and being ill which has been trivialised by the trial Court holding that the medical records may have been got up. And in the face of serious objections by the learned Government Pleader on the footing that this Court already having rejected the petition, twice over, there is no fresh ground made out for enlargement on bail.