VARUN C Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused No.2 in S.C.No.82/2023 has filed application under Sec. 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to release on bail.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of prosecution is that on 5/11/2022, at 8.45 am, Jayalakshmipuram Police registered a case in No.57 of 2022 against Madappa, his sons, and others under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed by Mr. Sanjay Angadi, son-in-law of the deceased R.N. Kulkarni. The complainant alleged that Mr. Kulkarni, a retired Assistant Director of Intelligence Bureau residing in Mysuru, had a dispute with Madappa over the construction of Madappa's house adjacent to Mr. Kulkarni's residence. Mr. Kulkarni had requested Madappa and his children to leave space between their properties. Mr. Kulkarni pursued legal action and obtained an injunction against Madappa's construction. Madappa challenged this order in the High Court, offering to demolish the house, if deemed illegal. The complaint claims Mr. Kulkarni said Madappa and his children aimed to harm him, citing an unverified police complaint. The deceased-R.N. Kulkarni filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Mysuru City Corporation and also filed Writ Petition No.1947 of 2022 before the High Court of Karnataka. However, on 2/11/2022, Mysuru City Corporation passed an order for demolition of the house illegally constructed by said Mr. Madappa.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.K.C. Pratheep submits that the plain reading of the complaint does not make prima facie case against the petitioner for which he has been charged. The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence which is to be proved at the time of trial. Even as per the case of the prosecution the deceased died on account of accident and further as per column No.17 of the charge sheet. Accused No.1 who drove the vehicle and dashed against the accused. Therefore, at this stage, even accepting the case of prosecution, the allegation of murder is against accused No.1. Hence, further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Accused No.2 having not all participated in the alleged crime, only on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.1, the petitioner has implicated as accused No.2 and there is no prima facie material against him.