Sri Gajendra @ Gaja vs State Of Karnataka By on 13 September, 2013

Karnataka High Court

Sri Gajendra @ Gaja vs State Of Karnataka By on 13 September, 2013
Author: N.Ananda
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4017/2013
BETWEEN:
SRI GAJENDRA @ GAJA
S/O MUNIKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
R/A NO.100/11, 9TH CROSS
21ST MAIN, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT
BEHIND OXFORD SCHOOL
MADIWALA MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560029.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI LEELADHAR H P, ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-560076.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C.,

PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.146/2013 OF MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BANGALORE
CITY & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64344866/

Sri Gajendra @ Gaja vs State Of Karnataka By on 13 September, 2013

ORDER

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in S.C.No.894/2013, pending trial for offences punishable
under sections 302, 201 & 364 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 11.06.2013. He
has sought for bail.
2. I have heard Sri H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vijaykumar Majage,
learned HCGP for State.
3. The petitioner and other co-accused are alleged to have abducted deceased Manish Nayar from
Surya Nursing Home, Tavarekere Circle, BTM Layout I Phase and committed his murder near a
gomala land of Chikkahullur Village, Hosakote Taluk and disfigured deadbody to cause
disappearance of evidence.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner has made following submissions:I. The petitioner has been implicated on the voluntary statement made by co-accused.
II. The statement of CW3-Nagaraja who had last seen the deceased in the company of
petitioner was recorded after a period of one month.

III.

The petitioner has been falsely implicated to

prevent

him

from

giving

evidence

in

S.C.No.101/2012.

5. The learned HCGP has made following submissions:I. There was enmity between deceased and petitioner. II. The petitioner and other
accused were suspecting that deceased was passing information relating to activities
of gang of I-accused to one Tulasi, who was heading the rival gang.
III. The deceased was last seen alive in the company of petitioner, rather
CW3-Nagaraja had seen petitioner abducting the deceased from Surya Nursing
Home near Tavarekere Circle, BTM Layout I Phase. IV. The death of deceased was
homicidal. The police have collected call details to show on the date of incident,
petitioner had received mobile calls from tower location which is near the place of
incident. V. The Fiat Car bearing No.KA-02-MG-3491, which was used for
commission of offence belonged to the father of petitioner and it was seized during
course of investigation.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64344866/

Sri Gajendra @ Gaja vs State Of Karnataka By on 13 September, 2013

6. Before adverting to submissions made by learned counsel for parties, it is

necessary to refer to the conduct of petitioner. The petitioner had sought for
anticipatory bail in Criminal Petition No.2651/2013. This court dismissed Criminal
Petition No.2651/2013 on 07.06.2013 with a direction to petitioner to surrender
before trial court and seek regular bail. The petitioner did not surrender before trial
court, on the other hand, he was arrested by jurisdictional police on 11.06.2013.
These are the facts which are borne by records. Notwithstanding these facts, which
are borne by records, in the instant petition, petitioner has stated that he surrendered
before police on 11.06.2013, without specifying the name of police station. The
statement of facts made in instant petition is a wrong statement of facts, rather
misleading statement of facts.
7. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was implicated on the basis of
voluntary statement made by other co-accused cannot be accepted.
8. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in
2005 (1) Crimes 113 (in the case of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu), wherein
it is held that confession statement made by co-accused under section 30 of the Evidence Act is a
very weak type of evidence which can at best be taken into consideration to lend assurance to the
prosecution case.
In the case on hand, the Investigating Officer has not relied upon confession statement. It is borne
by investigation records that petitioner and other accused armed with deadly weapons were found
near Surya Nursing Home, Tavarekere Circle, Chikkahullur Village, Hosakote Taluk, in Fiat Car
bearing No.KA-02-MG-3491. The police on receipt of credible information had reached that place.
The police were able to apprehend accused 3 to 5. The petitioner ran away from place of incident.
On interrogation, the Investigating Officer learnt from accused Nos.3 to 5 that person who ran away
from place is petitioner (accused No.1). This statement cannot be construed as a confession
statement falling under section 30 of the Evidence Act.
9. It is true that there is delay in recording the statement of CW3-Nagaraja, who had stated that he
had seen petitioner and other accused abducting deceased from Tavarekere Circle, BTM Layout I
Phase, on the date of incident. This statement also implies that deceased was last seen alive in the
company of petitioner and other accused.
10. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that deadbody of deceased was found in a gomala land of
Chikkahullur Village, Hoskote Taluk. The deadbody was in a decomposed state. It was found by
some villagers on 19.02.2013. The deceased was missing from 17.02.2013. The deadbody was
identified by clothes worn by deceased. In that process, there was delay in recording the statement
of CW3-Nagaraja. Therefore, at this juncture, delay in recording the statement of CW3 cannot be a
ground to suspect the contents of the statement of CW3. The Investigating Officer seized Fiat Car
bearing No.KA-02-MG-3491, which is alleged to have been used by petitioner for abducting the
deceased.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64344866/

Sri Gajendra @ Gaja vs State Of Karnataka By on 13 September, 2013

11. In view of the above prima facie incriminating material, petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail at
this stage. The petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE SNN

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64344866/