SOMANING AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No. 146/2015 registered with Devar Hipparagi Police for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC have come up in this petition seeking anticipatory bail.

(2.) Admittedly, the offences are alleged against these two persons and another Adiveppa S/o Kantappa Balaganur. Though the complaint is registered on the same day of the incident i.e., on 26.10.2015, the police for the reason best known to them have not apprehended the petitioners herein who are accused Nos.2 and 3 in the complaint. The material on record would indicate that initially the investigation was done by Bhimanagouda Biradar, CPI, which was only on the date of the incident. Subsequently, from 27.10.2015, the matter was entrusted to one Mahadev L. Tungal, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Indi, for further investigation. The said officer has investigated from 27.10.2015 to 26.11.2015 wherein he has secured postmortem report of the deceased. He has recorded statements and as well as further statements of various persons who are cited as witnesses and also statement of one of the accused. It is seen that the said Mahadev L. Tungal, Deputy Superintendent of Police has proceeded on sick leave on 27.11.2015 resulting in the matter being entrusted to another Deputy Superintendent of Police by name Laxman Y. Shirkol to proceed with the matter. When he took over the investigation from 27.11.2015, he completed the same and filed charge sheet on 02.01.2016.

(3.) Incidentally, the charge sheet which is filed in Crime No. 146/2015 is for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC and under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In other words, complaint which was initially registered for an offence under Section 302 of IPC is conveniently and quietly diluted to the extent of bringing it to the stage of 304(B) of IPC with the handy work of the Investigating Officers. In fact, this would have gone unnoticed but for the fact that accused Nos.2 and 3 approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. When admittedly crime is said to have taken place on 26.10.2015, for nearly two and half years, petitioners were happily moving around in the society without any threat of their apprehension by the police. Though charge sheet is filed on 02.01.2016, for another two years and two months, they had no fear of being arrested by the police.