ERACHIKKAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition, one under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the 'Code') is for granting anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners.

(2.) The facts of the case as disclosed from the petition are these : Since the year 1984 there has been civil litigation between one Sampangirama- iah of Salahunise village on the one hand and the 1st and the 4th petitioner on the other. The 1st petitioner and the 4th petitioner have so far come out successful in all the civil litigations against Sampangiramaiah. However, one such litigation between the parties is now pending before this court and one other suit is pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District. All the cases are being hotly contested by the parties. The 4th petitioner who had the benefit of an order passed by the competent Civil Court with regard to the user and enjoyment of the wet land wherein he has raised sugarcane crop which has become ripe for being harvested. Sampangiramaiah has commenced litigation in respect of the sugarcane crop raised by the 4th petitioner. By virtue of an order passed by this court, both the parties have been prevented from harvesting the standing sugarcane crop though it had become ripe for being harvested more than five months ago.

(3.) While the civil litigation between the parties stood thus, Sampangiramaiah gave a complaint before Harohalli Police on 20-10-1985 against the petitioners and two others alleging that there has been civil disputes between himself and the petitioners, that on 20-10-1985 at about 9 a. m. he had gone to neighbouring village to attend the obsequies of his relation, that he returned to the village at about 3 p.m. when he was informed by his daughter that his wife Sarasamma who had gone to their land in the morning had not returned, that on hearing this, he and his brother Hanumaiah went in search of Sarasamma to their land where they found Sarasamma lying dead with bleeding injuries, that the ornaments worn by her were found missing and it was these petitioners and two others who committed the murder of Sarasamma and carried the ornaments she was wearing. The police, on the basis of the complaint filed by Sampangiramaiah registered a case in Cr. No. 106/1985 of Harohalli Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 395 I. P. C. against the petitioners and two others and submitted the F.I.R.. to the court fo the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore District. The averments made in the complaint show that none had seen the deceased being assaulted by the assailants, let alone by the petitioners. The case against the petitioners and two others came to be registered on mere suspicion. The complainant Sampangiramaiah had involved the petitioners and the other accused falsely in the crime with a view to wreak vengeance against them and also preventing petitioners 1 and 4 from defending the civil suits between them and Sampangiramaiah now pending before the Civil Courts. The material collected in the course of investigation on the date of filing the revision would not reveal that the petitioners are guilty of an offence punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Sampangiramaiah in active collusion with some other people of the village has already put the investigating agency on a wrong track to see that the petitioners are arrested by the police. Being misled by the complainant and his close associates, the Police have been shadowing the petitioners to arrest them in the case registered on the complaint of Sampangiramaiah. Besides, Sampangiramaiah has been openly proclaiming that he has managed the things in such a way with the investigating agency that the petitioners would be arrested ; hand-cuffed and detained in the lock-up of Harohalli Police station and then they would be paraded in the village and produced in the court. The petitioners apprehend that they would be put to humiliation and rediculein the eyes of the public. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have filed this petition straight away in this court without approaching the Sessions Court for granting anticipatory bail to them.