Laxman Jarakiholi v. State Of Karnataka

1. A father and two sons currently indicted along with 27 others of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 120(a)(b) of the I.P.C as also for being in possession of illegal fire arms etc., under a chargesheet filed by the Sankeshwar Police, in the Court of the Magistrate Hukkeri under detention presently in the Belgaum Central Prison, have made these two applications for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Cr. P.C Although applications like the one under consideration are made day in and day out to this Court and are disposed off in a routine manner, for one reason or the other these applications are pending since January 1989 and have given the cause for some concern relating, as they do, the personal liberty of three citizens who have been lying in wait behind prison's doors where they are now held.

2. The facts of the case as narrated by either side bring to the fore a scenario which an ordinary movie goer these days is very familiar since it involved a cinematic declamation of a set of villains chasing another set of people dubbed as virtuous both sets fleeing or fleeing away in vehicles at one stage with the villains taking pot-shots at the virtuous lot firing a fusillade of shots from guns ranging from a sophisticated AK-47 rifle to ordinary double barrel guns, revolvers etc., a clutch of ten weapons allegedly recovered from the bunch of these accused, tell the story of what according to the prosecution is organised crime aimed at exterminating just one person. But unfortunately along with him two others who were buffers in between having also paid with their lives the whole picture unfolding on three different sites: first of which being the car in which the ill-fated occupants were travelling made immobile when tyres of the car were deflated by bullets belching from their guns injuring in the bargain two inmates of the car Bhimappa Pujari and Kallappa Aigali. It is said the car was chased by all the accused who were in two jeeps and that coterie included the applicants in Cr. P. No. 98/89, several others most of whom are said to be the loyal servitors of Laxman Jarakiholi applicant in Cr. P. No. 97/89. It is alleged that all these people found travelling with guns, axes and other lethal weapons, caught up with the now stagnant car that came to a halt when the tyres were deflated by gun fire at the bidding of the viz., Satish Jarkiholi and Bhimshi Jarkiholi applicants in Cr. P. No. 97/89 both youngmen-hardly out of their teens pulled out Kallappa Aigali, Bhimappa Pujari and Laxman Aigali, one Prakash Mahajan. But by then Appanna Aigali who is also said to have been injured in the firing managed to escape and ran away to safety despite being given a chase by two persons from the convoy of the vehicles carrying the accused. But Prakash Mahajan who was in the ill-fated car had remained amazingly unhurt and was taken away along with the others from the Car, i.e, the two dead men i.e, Kallappa and Bhimu and the still alive Laxman Aigali in their jeeps to a further point 35 kilometers away. At the second site again at the bidding of Satish and Bhimshi the still alive Laxman Aigali was pulled out and at their command hacked to two pieces by the 20th accused - Taladappa, Later a truck belonging to the Jarkiholi family laden with sand was ordered to be brought to that spot and the three dead bodies whisked away hidden beneath the mound of sand accompanied by Bhimshi and Satish to a far off place in Vaddu near Sandoor in Bellary District where the bodies were tried to be decimated by pouring petrol and setting them ablaze by fire. In the meanwhile of the two survivors, it was Prakash Mahajan who had a ring side seat to watch the inhumane manner in which Laxman Aigali was disposed off and the body taken away to the site of cremation, was all along in the company of the accused, taken to their house where he was given a change of clothing in exchange of his blood-stained clothes and sent off for a quiet stay in a hut 35 kilometres away with a warning that if he divulged to any one what he had seen he would soon join his erstwhile friends and that threat it appears was administered by no less a person that the senior Jarkiholi applicant in Cr. P. No. 97/89. In the meanwhile Appanna who had managed to give the slip to his pursuers had hidden himself in a nearby bush not very far off from the place where the car had been successfully attacked being a place near a hamlet called Nidasasu, and after a night long vigil happened to see another gentleman moving about in the nearby haunts and after hailing him narrated to him his own plight and asked for help. This gentleman Shankar Badager went into the village to bring Shankar Doddamani said to be a relation of Appanna Ramu Aigali (Complainant) and after the latter came to the place where Appanna Aigali was in hiding, that led to Appanna being shifted from there to nearby town of Sankeshwar for treatment of his injuries with a private doctor Mohan Sirge who after hearing the blood curdling tale narrated by Appanna, it appears told him all this being a medico legal case he had therefore to file a complaint to the Police. But Appanna not being in a position to write out a complaint requested the Doctor to write it for him and it was the doctor who wrote the complaint setting out therein some details of the incident as narrated to him. The complaint clearly mentioned that the attack was planned by Laxman Jarakiholi and his family. There upon investigation began and the police it is said got a brake only on the 9th of November 1989, the investigation was able to get a better picture of what had transpired after recording the statement of the Prakash Mahajan and later on the same evening one Pandu who is stated to have driven sand laden lorry in which the three dead bodies had been transported was apprehended while moving about in the nearby forest and thus they had information regards the disposal of the dead bodies at far off Sandur in Bellary District. The police rushed to that place, found according to information three half burnt dead bodies one of which had only a trunk and a decapitated torso both recognised by the wife, mother-in-law and the other next kin of the deceased Laxman Aigali and by the relations of Bheemu Poojary after whose arrival the inquest on the dead bodies took place and all of them were identified by the next of kin mostly by the appareis still sticking to dead bodies. Then the police launched a massive man hunt for the accused nearly for 10 or 11 days and after they were rounded up, on information given by them were able to secure ten weapons, amongst them a A.K 47 rifle, stengun and other weapons said to have been deployed in the killing of these persons. Finally on the conclusion of investigation they placed a chargesheet in the Court of the Magistrate at Hukkeri on the 7th February 1989 along with a morass of material gathered during investigation. In the meanwhile applications for bail having been made on behalf of these applicants in the Court of the Magistrate, the same came to be rejected and subsequently the Sessions Judge having been approached the learned Judge also rejected the same holding it to be inexpedient to enlarge them on bail, followed by the applications made to this Court now under consideration for grant of bail. I have heard very longish but informative argument by both sides in support of and against these applications. Every attempt has been made by Sri. N.Y Hanumanthappa, learned Counsel appearing in support of these applications to classify the material produced by investigation as trumped up, false and mala fide whereas the same material has been commended with great emphasis for my acceptance by the learned Government Pleader who amongst other things pointed out that every aspect of the prosecution's case coming out of the mouth of the two witnesses Appanna Aigali and Prakash Mahajan was borne-out by circumstantial material gathered during the course of investigation particularly with the Post Mortem report showing injuries sustained by the deceased regarding two of whom the post mortem had given a clear verdict of injuries by gun shot. Reference is made to the condition of the car in which the deceased were travelling. The blood bath smearing the car, the punched bullet holes all over the car clearly showing that it could not have occured but by the (sic) of bullets as also the circumstance of the great ill-will and grudge between the senior Jarkiholi and Lax-man Aigali an aspect which probably even the defence does not dispute, crystalized as it was by the series of Sessions Cases in between them one of which was said to be still pending on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge at Belgaum. In the course of his argument, the learned Government Pleader gave me a fairly clear picture of what that Laxman Aigali whom the accused were said to be hunting on that day was. It appears being only an Excise Inspector he was known to possess means beyond his legitimate earnings. The learned Government Pleader says that he had a house and lands in Gokak and in far-off Athni which was the place where he was working at the time of the incident he had also amassed property all being objects of illegitimate acquisition. Government Pleader says that Laxman Aigali was certainly not a paragon of virtue but that he did not certainly deserve to be snuffed out in the manner as it was done. It would appear while being an excise inspector he was carrying on liquor vending in the name of Laxman Jarkiholi and had carried on the activity for nearly a decade during the course of which he had amassed lot of money but both of them had fallen out probably in the sharing of the spoils ultimately resulting in an attempt made on the life of Jarkiholi by Laxman Aigali and as a counter blast an attempt made on Aigali by Jarkiholi and his cohorts. It is said to escape the wrath of Jarkiholi and the surround that awaited him, Aigali took a transfer to far off Athni which was the last post in the District of Belgaum where he was again carrying trading in liquor while still being an official in the excise department. This time it is said having acquired a false front through the ages of one Kage & Co., he as carrying on the liquor business covertly. It is said that he always feared retribution by Jarkiholi and therefore took the precaution of always having with him sufficient number of people who were armed and was also known to carry with him a revolver. On that fateful day he was getting back from Belgaum to Athni after attending to some business in the excise office at Belgaum after having camped over night at the local Milan Hotel along with others viz., deceased Bheemu, Kallappa Aigali as also Appanna the complainant and the witnesses Prakash Mahajan. That evening all of them left Belgaum and after they had travelled a distance of 30 miles Aigali noticed two jeeps following him and therefore accelerated speed with a view to over take a truck in front but another jeep having come from the opposite direction, he had to slow down and to fall back behind the truck, which change it is said gave the accused the opportunity to get close to his car and on coming near they started firing at the car from dose range ultimately resulting in blowing up the tyres of the car so that the car could not move on resulting in the car forcibly coming to a halt and further resulting in fatal injuries being sustained by Kallappa and Bheemu at which stage Aigali having also sustained an injury an aspect which is not very clear from the submissions made on either side. Be that as it may, while Appanna Aigali who was in the car managed to give the slip Prakash Mahajan who had stayed on and was taken away, in the jeep along with Laxman, Kallappa and Bheemu Poojari and after travelling 35 kilometres to a place galled Kumathgol cross jeep stopped there and whereas Bheemu who was attacked by A-19 with an axe fatally, injuries with the worst awaited Basappa Laxman Aigali who it appears was pushed to the ground and hacked to two pieces by A-15. Whereas this blood curdling episode of the brutal killing of Aigali finds adumbration in the statement of Prakash Mahajan, but the events till then are unfolded in the complaint of Appanna to which I have already alluded to, No doubt all this transpired and went into the record at 930 A.M on the next day when the police received the complaint of Appanna by which time the first-incident was nearly 13 or 14 hours old. According to Mr. Hanumanthappa, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants thereby hangs a tale. The applications for bail hence are grounded principally on the assertion that on the material produced by the investigation no prima facie case had been made out against any of these applicants so as to deem their involvement in this extremely bizarre crime and it is also said that there was no reasonable ground to suspect their involvement and that from the beginning to end case of the prosecution is a tissue lies resting on trumped up and false accusations. In other words, the entire investigation is censured and castigated as malefic, fraudulent and false, wholly aimed at sinking Jarkiholi, the members of his family and his cohorts.

3. Two circumstances are highlighted by Mr. Hanumanthappa, with great vigour and emphasis. Counsel says that the F.I.R in the case resting on the complaint of that Appanna lodged 14 hours after the incident, lacked information. Counsel says the complainant had not named any of the accused, did not give any details of the overt-acts and if such skimpy work was all that had resulted following consultation with close relations, the near and dear one's of the deceased and the complainant, it is therefore urged little credibility can attach to the basic document of the prosecution. Counsel also lays great stress on the fact that it could not have taken 14 hours for this man Appanna Aigali to lodge the complaint and that the enormous and inordinate delay in filing the complaint has remained totally unexplained. Counsel goes on to attack the credibility of the witness Prakash Mahajan regards whom it is urged it is incredible that he can be still alive when the other three who were with him had died and another one of them had been injured. More over Counsel says if he had been taken away by the accused, would they have let him live so that he could turn a witness against them, pointing out again that his statement had been recorded only on the 9th, some three days after the incident, the argument runs there having been sufficient time to groom a witness, Prakash Mahajan was clearly the end result of the ingenuity of the Investigating Officer. Another circumstance mooted with lot of seriousness is the discrepancies that are said to abound in the statements furnished to the Court of the Magistrate on the 4th February 1989 and the statements of the witnesses filed along with the charge-sheet presented on 7-2-1989. It is pointed out by Mr. Hanumanthappa I must say he had taken a lot of pains in going through the statements and making a record of the discrepancies in great detail and some of them very much in a minuscule fashion speaking a lot for Counsel's industry that must merit appreciation as even the smallest of changes and variation in the statements of witnesses having been located and catalogued and in the light of these alterations and changes it is claimed that the whole of the investigation is foul and deserves to be struck down as being totally malefic and fraudulent. Therefore it is claimed commending of such material stemming from a dishonest investigation was clearly a case of abusing the process of the Court.

4. Strong as this criticism is I am afraid that I must remain unmoved by these supplications of Counsel made with so much vigour and passion. This is not the stage for weighing any evidence and this is not the stage for watching the scales to note which way they tipped. We have only primary facts and their probative value has still to be assessed. It is one thing if there was no material at all or whatever there was so incredible and manifestly unbelievable so that a man in the street would have raised his eye brows and bulked at them.

5. I am afraid whatever be the criticism of Mr. Hanumanthappa the situation is not as bad as envisaged. I must say, investigation in this case, there can be no doubt, has been very difficult. The situation is complicated. The scene of action is spread over three different sites. The problem is that no two persons had seen the same thing at the same time altogether and that is the case of the prosecution. This according to the prosecution is a case of one incident telescoping into another and the last one making up the climax since each one of had have occurred separately and at considerable distance from one another, the same set of persons could not have followed the course of events, is an aspect commended by the prosecution and at this stage I cannot say that there is no merit in this submission. Suffice just to point out one circumstance to bear-out whether it be Appanna Aigali or Prakash Mahajan were they merely persons conveying only a spin of a fertile imagination. Their case is they were set upon and subjected to target practice by Firing on them. Appanna in his complaint referred to the injury sustained by the brother of Kallappa who was sitting at the back and behold there is a gun shot wound on him. The body of Aigali is stated to have been hacked in two pieces separating the trunk from the head and there again at the abhorring site of crime a half burnt body in two separate portions later indentified by the wife of that ill-fated Aigali as that of her husband was traced and the learned Government Pleader also points out that the place where Aigali was hacked to death a piece of metal that was part of his ring was found and its identity had been established credibly. At all three sites profusion of human blood indicated the ghostly and ghoulish activity that had taken place and at this stage must be treated as sufficient to implicate these persons in a prima facie way. The first-accused Laxman Jarkiholi according to the prosecution is the man who had planned the whole of this cruel game and had sent in his children and other henchmen to play out the same. The prosecution claimed that he had planted a make believe story that he was taking treatment at the Gokak Hospital on that day but he was not in the hospital at all and all this was done to keep himself away from the scene of action so that no suspicion would fall on him. I do not wish to speculate now on this theory. Suffice it to say that even according to the prosecution Laxman Jarkiholi was not present at the scene of incident but that certainly is not a point in his favour since there is a charge of conspiracy based not merely on the events but also on the evidence of two witnesses whose credibility is again seriously questioned by Sri. Hanumanthappa.

6. As pointed out earlier I will not allow myself to be drawn into this controversy at this juncture. The presence of these two youngmen Sateesh and Bhimshi Jarkiholi the applicants in Cr. P. No. 98/89 is spoken to by Prakash Mahajan and prosecution claimed to have recovered weapons from them all making at any rate evident at this stage subject of course to the aforesaid projection standing up for judicial scrutiny later, must necessarily convey to any one who sifts this material, the presence of these two people being part and parcel of the bloody game that was played out on that fateful evening on 5-4-1988.

7. In the case of Gurucharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 : AIR 1978 SC 179, the Supreme Court has pointed out that at the stage of considering an application for bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C all that is needed was a prima facie case and not a total and the complete denouncement of the prosecution's case as if the primary facts collected during investigation being weighed like substantive evidence. In the case of A. Prasad v. State of Karnataka, 1982 Crl. L.J 542, His lordship Mr. Justice Vithal Rao enunciating the para meters within which an application for bail under Section 439 Cr. P.C has to be considered stated:

“While considering the application for bail under Section 439, Cr. P.C, it is necessary to take into consideration the two basic considerations. The first consideration whether the accused would take up the trial without hampering it and secondly whether he would subject himself to the verdict of the Court. The Court must also consider other factors such as, the serious nature of the crime alleged to have been committed and the gravity of the circumstances under which such an offence is alleged to have been committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; of repeating the offences; of jeopardising his own life being freed with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case and other relevant grounds.”

(emphasis supplied)

8. This court in K. Narayan v. Central Bureau Of Investigation* of Investigation, ILR 1989 KAR 1810, which was a case in which bail had been sought when investigation was still in progress made the following enunciation while declining the application for bail.

“To be satisfied about a prime facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. But the fact that the application for bail is by a police accused should not deter the Court from doing what is just and proper. It should view the pros and cons undettered by the presence of psychic pressure of police presence. It is well to remember these norms in dealing with the application now made before this Court.

Whether it be in the course of the trial, before the trial or before filing the chargesheet or during the course of the investigation there being a right in the accused to seek bail, an application made in that behalf has always got to be considered on its merits, but with this difference viz., when the x x x xxx xxx.

The other factors as well to be countenanced by the Court while disposing of a bail application and those considerations, according to the Court, are the position and status of the accused, with reference to the victim and witness, and likehood of the accused fleeing from justice with a grim prospect of plausible conviction in the case, the tampering with witnesses; history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which in view of so many variable factors cannot be exhaustively set out”.

9. Mir. Hanumanthappa however placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathsingh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, (1984) 1 SCC 284 : AIR 1984 SC 372. That was a case where the High Court had cancelled the bail granted by the Sessions Judge. On appeal by the accused Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while allowing the appeal and restoring the order of the Sessions Judge pointed out that the power of the High Court to grant bail should not be exercised if punishment was being imposed before trial and a material consideration for granting or refusal of bail was whether the accused was likely to abuse the discretion exercised in his favour by tampering with evidence or he was likely to jump the bail granted. Mr. Hanumanthappa also placed reliance on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K. Narayanaswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1980 Crl. L.J 588. But that was a case for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. P.C While considering such applications it was pointed out, Court should not be weighed down unnecessarily by the ghastly nature of the crime.

10. Mr. Hanumanthappa lastly relied on Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in Uthaman v. State Of Kerala, 1980 Crl. L.J 74, the question that arose in that case was whether a person convicted for murder and sentenced for life can be enlarged on bail pendenti lite. Their Lordships pointed out that the power of the Court to grant bail even in such cases could not be negated and the conviction of a person after trial did not give rise to a presumption that the accused had committed the offence while it appears that there can better be no dispute regards basic principles, the question is one of applying them to the facts of each case. The inputs in each case being different there is little point in affecting precedents in these matters which primarily calls for exercise of discretion by the Court which has undoubtedly got to be exercised in a judicious manner unlike the peregrinations, or a foot lose traveller.

11. As I have already pointed out the facts gathered by the investigation whether they are true or not being an aspect with which we are not just now concerned, disclose the committing of an organised crime carefully planned and executed employing sophisticated weaponry and one of its facets presenting the revulsive picture of man who was still alive being beheaded at the bidding of two of the applicants. The senior Jarkiholi there is also no controversy about it, he is certainly a man of large means; he was a liquor baron with a turn over of lakhs of rupees. The quantum of weaponry involved and the vehicles deployed in chasing the deceased Aigali and others indicated that he was a man who would employ any means to achieve his ends. The case of the prosecution principally turns now on the evidence of the two witnesses - Appanna Aigali and Prakash Mahajan and to some extent on the other two witnesses cited in support of the case of conspiracy. Appanna and Prakash Mahajan having lived out the traumatic experience of watching the systematic extermination by a set of fire belching marauders, I must mention that I am only touching on the prosecution case making it clear all this is no part of my verdict and therefore if these accused could be said to have unhesitatingly accounted for those three dead men and were to be now freed, the very psyche of the witnesses would be affected and even granting that the accused did not go anywhere near there, the fact these people are once again free may yet strike terror into the hearts of the witnesses resulting in revoking their support to the prosecution out of sheer fear and panic. These are fears expressed by the prosecution. The objection statement filed on behalf of the prosecution in this Court in opposition to the bail applications and affirmed later on in the affidavit of the investigating Officer, these fears have been expressed and in the circumstances I cannot say that regard being had to the turn of events and the persons involved, that they are groundless.

12. Likewise notwithstanding the repeated submissions of Sri. Hanumanthappa that none of his clients are likely to flee and jump bail because of the fool-proof case they had, I do not think it is possible to set any store on this submission regard being had to their means and resources, if they really take into their head to get away, all the exertion of the prosecution will then come to naught. The possibility of the prosecution being (Sic) and stultified not being ruled out is again a consideration adopted by Courts as valid criteria weighing with the Court in disposal of an application for grant of bail. Way back in the case of The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253, the Supreme Court indicated that Courts must exercise a greater degree of care in enlarging an accused indicted for offences of a grave nature on bail and amongst other things that decision emphasized the need to ensure that not merely the accused but the prosecution also had a fair chance of having their case tried and disposed of, without being exposed to pin pricks by the defence. This decision was followed by His Lordship Mr. Justice E.S Venkatramaiah as His Lordship then was in State (Through Deputy Commissioner of Police Special Branch, Delhi) v. Jaspal Singh Gill, (1984) 3 SCC 555 : AIR 1984 SC 1503. Suffice it to advert to head note-A which brings to the fore the enunciation made by His Lordship as follows:—

“The Court before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences particularly where the trial has not yet commenced should take into consideration various matters such as the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or the State and similar other consideration”

13. That in these matters of grant or refusing the bail the interest of society at large and the credibility and the image of the institution of the Court are aspects that must also go into the decision making process is what the Supreme Court again emphasized in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, (1987) 2 SCC 684 : AIR 1987 SC 1613. In that case Their Lordship while noticing the on going conflict between personal liberty of a citizen vis-a-vis the duty of the Court to ensure that interest of society died not suffer by letting lose on it a crime doer, the Court made the following observations which are some what appropriate:

“No doubt liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by Court, nonetheless when a person is accused of a serious offence like murder and his successive bail applications are rejected on merit there being prima facie material, the prosecution is entitled to place correct facts before the Court. Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interests of the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution. Learned Judge was unduly influenced by the concept of liberty disregarding the facts of the case.

One of the salutary principle in granting bail is that the Court should be satisfied that the accused being enlarged on bail will not be in a position to tamper with the evidence, when allegations of tampering of evidence are made, it is the duty of the Court to satisfy itself whether those allegations have basis (they can seldom be proved concrete evidence) and if the allegations are not found to be concocted it would not be a proper exercise of jurisdiction in enlarging the accused on bail. In the instant case there were serious allegations but the learned Judge did not either consider or test the same”.

14. It now seems to me that regard being had to the factual back drop of this case and the striking impression they make in a prima facie way and in fact at the Bar the connotation of the expression prima facie was the subject matter of a lot of argument but to me it is a simple expression connoting the idea of out word exposition or the external discernment of a set of facts by just a mere look and that is what clearly means. Understood in that manner no doubt there is lot of prima facie material on record indicating in a tentative manner the proximity of the accused to the crime alleged and their (Sic) involvement.

15. While I am drawing to a close of this discussion I must allude to an argument repeatedly advanced by Mr. Hanumanthappa based on the didactic statements said to have been produced in the Court of Magistrate and in the Court of Sessions Judge - the two sets being at sixes and sevens with one another. As I have stated earlier if they have indeed produced such a hash the prosecution must certainly compliment (sic) for placing its own case on the horns of a dilemma, while it is certainly open to the defence to take advantage of the prosecution's infirmity but this is not the stage at which they can hope to encash on the equivocal predilections of the investigation. I will not go into that aspect of the matter at all and shall leave it to the Trial Court to sort it out. I do not see any other exceptional ground to grant bail to any of the Jarkiholis, I had called for a report from the District Surgeon touching the condition and the health of the elder Jarkiholi who is said to be about 64 or 65 years. The doctor has certified that he needs further cardiac evaluation at a higher centre in the form of stress testing for Ischocardiography and if necessary coronary angiography. He has not suggested immediate hospitalization and treatment. In fact when I suggested to Mr. N.Y Hanumanthappa that his client may go into the Hospital for treatment and even be looked after by his wife while in the hospital but he will have to stay there under custody, Mr. Hanumanthappa was not very enthusiastic about it. The condition of the senior Jarkiholi is otherwise said to be good and according to the report his appetite good, sleep normal, Bowel & Micturition normal and that he is a chronic smoker and an avid pan and tobacco chewer. I do not think that regard being had to the report of the doctor the circumstance of the senior Jarkiholi's health condition is such as to furnish any ground for granting bail. Surprisingly I notice from his application for bail that more than anything he wanted to be out so that he can engage himself and be of assistance to his children in running his business. Regards the other two applicants again I must say that there are no exceptional circumstances at all. The fact that one of them was running a school and his presence needed for administering that institution is not a ground that suffices in law to set him free. The applicant Bheemshi is said to be only a teenager but his involvement in the crime if true is sufficient to deter the Court from expending its sympathies on him if even a fraction of what is stated by the prosecution is true, it looks as if a thoughtless parent had recklessly committed his children into committing a ghoulish crime and it would therefore be not in the interest of justice to enlarge them on bail pending trial.

16. For the reasons mentioned supra I am convinced that this is not a fit case for grant of bail to any of the applicants and therefore the applications in criminal petition Nos. 97 and 98/1989 are rejected.

17. Petition rejected.