NAGANAGOUDA AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 302, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution's case, as per the averments in the complaint, are that on 10.04.2010 one Ratna Fakirgouda Patil, the wife of the deceased filed a complaint alleging that on 05.10.2015 she had gone to Kittur Police Station to lodge a missing complaint alleging that on 02.04.2015 the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 came and took her husband Fakirgouda Chanagouda Patil on the pretext of some work and thereafter the deceased has gone somewhere and had not returned and the case was registered in Kitur P.S. Crime No. 53/2015. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant searched for the deceased in all the surrounding places and when she enquired a person by name Santosh whose mobile shop the deceased used to visit frequently, said Santosh alleged to have told her that on 02.04.2015 at 4.00 p.m. the deceased had come to his mobile shop on his motor -cycle and thereafter having parked his motor -cycle in front of his mobile shop gave its key to the said Santosh and told that he is going to Sirsi along with the petitioners and in the meantime the petitioner No. 1 arrived there in his car and the deceased boarded the said car and in the said car even petitioner No. 1 and one lady were present and thereafter the deceased asked the said Santosh that in case if it gets late he should take the bike to his house and that the deceased would take back his bike the next morning. Subsequently, when the complainant and others met the petitioners and enquired them about the deceased, the petitioners alleged to have told them that they do not know and instead asked the complainant to search the deceased herself. Further, it is alleged that on 10.04.2015 one Basayya Kalmath came to the house of the complainant and told her that he was having food at Gajraj Hotel, at that time. the petitioners too were having food at the next table and were talking about the deceased abusing him in vulgar language and that they have finished the deceased and were also saying now nobody will dare to ask them money. So, on the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered against the present petitioners.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel made the submission that firstly, on 05.04.2015, the complainant filed a missing complaint of her husband stating that on 02.04.2015, the petitioners came to her house and asked the deceased to accompany them as they were having some work and accordingly, deceased left the house stating that he will go and will come on the next day morning in spite of that when he did not come, the complainant made enquiry in the surrounding places and she filed the complaint on 05.04.2015 about the missing of her husband. Learned senior counsel made the submission that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. It is also his submission that the prosecution relied upon the voluntary statements said to have been given by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and only on the basis of the voluntary statements, the prosecution claims that it is the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 who have committed the murder of the deceased Fakirgouda Chanagouda Patil. Learned senior counsel also submitted that though it is the case of the prosecution that one Gowramma is said to be eye witness and her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is recorded before the Magistrate Court, it was after a lapse of two months. The incident is alleged to have taken place in the month of April and her statement under Section 164 was recorded in the month of June. Hence, he made the submission that no importance can be attached to the said statement of Gowramma. The counsel submitted that perusing the entire charge -sheet material, no prima facie case has been made out as against the petitioners by the prosecution and hence by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.