ANANDA KUMAR P V Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in the charge sheet laid by the police in CC No.3730/15. The charge sheet allegations are that accused No.1 is none other than the co-brother of the deceased. The complainant is the wife of the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that the sister of the complainant was given in marriage to accused No.1 for which the complainant was not happy. With all reluctance of CW5-the wife of the deceased the marriage had taken place. It is also the case of the prosecution, on several occasions, accused No.1 was demanding for the entire property belonging to the father of the complainant (wife of the deceased) on the ground that the deceased was very affluent and not entitled for any property and therefore accused No.1 alone wanted to grab the entire property. In this context, it is alleged that up to December-2013, there were verbal altercations between the family members. This is the strong motive attributed against accused No.1-the petitioner. The petitioner, in order to grab the entire property of his father-in-law, hatched a conspiracy with other accused persons to do away with the life of the deceased. In this context, it is alleged that on 17.02.2015, after lapse of more than one year two months, accused No.1-petitioner has paid Rs.5 lakhs as supari to accused Nos.6 and 7 in turn to pay the same to accused Nos.2 to 5 to do away with the life of the deceased. Accordingly, on 17.02.2015, at about 7.40 p.m. accused Nos.2 to 5 came in two wheelers with deadly weapons like choppers etc., in front of house of the CW22 they way laid the deceased and mercilessly assaulted him with deadly weapons and due to which he sustained 17 injuries on his body and consequently succumbed to the injuries. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 7 have conspired with each other prior to the incident and thereafter accused No.1 has paid Rs.5 lakhs to accused Nos.6 and 7 to pay to accused Nos.2 to 5; accused Nos.6 and 7 have taken Rs.1 lakh each and the remaining amount has been distributed amongst accused Nos.2 to 5 and accused Nos.1 to 7 were proceeding towards Tamilnadu. On 10.03.2015, on receipt of credible information, the police have intercepted their way and caught hold accused Nos.1 to 7 and brought them to police station and the car of accused No.1 was seized and it is the further case of the prosecution that in the said car some incriminating articles like chopper and blood stained mat were also recovered and also during the course of interrogation, the police said to have recovered photographs of the deceased containing handwriting of accused No.1 from accused Nos.2 to 5. On the basis of the said factual aspects mainly on the ground of motive, conspiracy and recovery of some articles from the car of accused No.1 as well as the circumstances of the case, the prosecution have charge sheeted this petitioner as one of the accused.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP and also learned counsel appearing for the intervener.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contends before this Court that there is no material placed before the Court absolutely with regard to conspiracy hatched between accused Nos.1 to 7 prior to the incident and there is no material to show that at any point of time accused No.1 met accused Nos.6 and 7 and paid the amount of Rs.5 lakhs. There is absolutely no material in so far as these allegations are concerned except the voluntary statement of co-accused. Learned counsel further submits that, recovery of the deadly weapons from the car of accused No.1 and mat containing blood stains and chopper from accused No.4 were made in the police station and not on the spot where the accused were arrested and cash was seized, which at this stage creates serious doubt as to what transpired between the police and the accused persons. Therefore, at this stage, such materials cannot be taken into consideration by the Court for the purpose of rejecting the bail petition, that has to be established beyond reasonable doubt during the course of full fledged trail. He further submits that there is no material to show accused Nos.6 and 7 at any point of time interacted with accused No.1 and so also accused Nos.2 to 5. Learned counsel also brought to my notice that there is no material which is trustworthy of acceptance at this stage that all the accused persons were arrested at a time. No memo of arrest was prepared in so far as accused No.1 is concerned, as per the strict guidelines issued by the Apex Court in D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri vs. State of West Bengal, 1997 AIR(SC) 610.