Smt. Lagamawwa v. The State of Karnataka

(By Shri. Vinavak S. Kulkarni, HCGP) . Petitioner . . .. . Respondent This Petition is filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to enlarge Sankeshwar Police Station Crime No.244/2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. the petitioner on bail This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3 in Crime No.244/2010 of Sankeshwar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that one Kalagouda Babagouda Patil of Sankeshwar had lodged the complaint to the effect that on 09.10.20 10 at about 05:00 p.m. while he was near his home and was talking to one Shivaji Pawar of Ankale village, they had heard a commotion from the sugarcane field belonging to the complainant, when they rushed towards the field they saw two persons running away from the sugarcane field and saw one person lying on the ground with bleeding injuries on his head and back with swelling near the left eye. When they questioned the injured about the incident, he merely g 3 murmured that he was form Pachchapure village. Thereafter, he fell unconscious and later died at about 05:30 p.m.

3. Itisonthebasisofthesaidreportthatacasewas registered against unknown persons. During the course of the investigation the Police arrested Balesh Patil and Gajendra Talwar on 03.09.2010. The dead body was identified during the inquest proceedings as that of one Maruti Shetteppa Naik of Dasanhatti. It was further revealed that the above arrested persons had made an extra-judicial confession before one Yallappa Nirvani and Chandrappa Patil that the deceased was murdered at the instigation of the petitioner who is said to have had a long illicit relationship with Balesh Path. It was further revealed that the deceased had learnt about the illicit relationship and had taken the petitioner to task and assaulted on account of the illicit relationship that she was having with Balesh Patil. It was this which lead to petitioner to instigate the other two accused to murder her husband on 09.08.20 10 and it was alleged that accused No.1 and 2 had taken the deceased Maruti Shetteppa Naik from Dasanahatti to Sankeshwar bus- $ 4 stand and thereafter lead him to the sugarcane field, where he was assaulted with stone inflicting head injuries resulting in death. It was on the above circumstances being pieced together the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.09.2010.

4. The petitioner had approached the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum seeking bail. However, the said petition was opposed by the prosecution contending that there are strong circumstances pointing to the petitioner being instrumental in causing the death of the deceased through accused No.1 and 2 in the manner as aforestated and further that there was an extra judicial confession made by accused No.1 and 2 before Yaliappa Nirvani and Chandrappa Patil. Apart from the petitioners daughter, also having stated that her mother was having an illicit relationship with Balesh Patil and in those strong circumstances it was not a case where the petitioner was entitled to bail, even though she was a woman, and hence had opposed the said petition. S

5. The Court below has accepted the objection raised and has opined that in view of the extra judicial confession made by accused No.1 and 2 it would primafacie establish the complicity and involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the crime and since the investigation was still on, the likelihood of the petitioner bringing influencing on her daughter and other witnesses was imminent and therefore, rejected the bail petition which is in question in the present petition.

6. The Government pleader has filed his objections and he would contend that the circumstances as made out would point to the certain involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence and that if she is released on bail, she would tamper with the witnesses, especially her daughter who is teenager and is most likely to influence her and this would seriously hamper the prosecution case. The petitioner is also capable of influencing other witnesses in her favour and therefore it is not a fit case where she ought to be granted bail. 6

7. Mere apprehension of the petitioner would tamper with the prosecution witnesses would however by ignoring the question whether there was a primafacie case of the petitioner being involved in the offence all together. The reliance placed on extra judicial confession of the accused or the statement alleged to have been made by the daughter of the petitioner, that the petitioner was having an illicit relationship with accused No.1 cannot be a ground for denying bail. The petitioner has been in custody since 07.09.20 10 and since the likelihood of the petitioner absconding or the petitioner interfering with the prosecution witnesses cannot be readily accepted. And when it cannot be said that there was primafacie material circumstances pointing to the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of an offence on the basis of extra judicial confession said to have been made by accused No.1 and 2, the petitioner is certainly entitled to bail subject to the following terms and conditions: i) The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing solvent surety for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and the petitioner shall not 7 interfere or influence or seek to threaten or induce the prosecution witnesses in any manner and she shall make herself available for further trial in any manner. ii) She shall attend the trial Court regularly on every date of hearing of the case and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court and shall not in any manner impede the trial by remaining absent on the relevant dates of hearing. Accordingly the petition is allowed subject to the above conditions being complied with. Sd! jUDGE Sub