Karnataka High Court
Chandrappa S/O Fakkirappa ... vs State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101915/2017
BETWEEN:
1. CHANDRAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA GURANNANAVAR
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SAGARAVALLI,
TAL: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
2. MANJU S/O YALLAPPA GURANNANAVAR
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: SRINGERI, TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
3. RAMESH S/O YALLAPPA GURANNANAVAR
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: SRINGERI, TAL: HANGAL,
DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PSI HANGAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HAVERI. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ANAND K.NAVALAGIMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL
:2:
IN HANGAL P.S. CRIME NO.72/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HANGAL FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302,
504 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail, of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302, 504, 506 read With Section 149 of IPC, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.72/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments, one Paramesh son of Yellappa Gurannavar who is the cousin brother of the deceased lodged the complaint in this case, wherein he has stated there was a property dispute in between one Khanappa, who is the son of uncle of the complainant, and also the accused persons and in that regard panchayat was held :3: before the elders and it was decided that, the properties belong to Khanappa the deceased. Hence as per the decision of the elders, the complainant and his people were insisting the accused persons to leave the property. Further averments in the petition show that, in connection with the said matter there was a difference of opinion and enmity between the complainant side and accused persons. Further averments that, on 24.04.2017 at 10.00 p.m. when the complainant and his father, mother, one Jagadish, after having the meals, they were sitting and at that time accused No.1 came to the house of the complainant and started to abuse the father of the complainant in the abusive words and calling him to come out side of the house, stating that when they were ploughing the land with the JCB, the father of the complainant came to the land and prevented from ploughing the said land. Then all the family members i.e., complainant, his mother, one Jagadish and the father of the complainant all came outside of the house, at that time the accused No.1 along with his supporters i.e., other :4: accused persons picked up quarrel, accused No.1 assaulted the father of the complainant with the stick on his head, then other accused persons started to assault the complainant, Jagadish with their hands. The further averments goes to show, in the meanwhile after hearing hue and cry deceased-Khanappa came outside of the house to pacify the quarrel, at that time the accused- Paramesh Yallappa Kondoji caught hold the shirt of the said Khanappa and pushed him and thereafter the other accused persons i.e., accused No.1 to 3 and 5 started to assault the Khanappa with their hands, the deceased- Khanappa sustained injuries and he was shifted to the hospital and in the meanwhile he succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered for the said offences against the petitioners and other accused persons.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
:5:
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the submission that, looking to the complaint averments and also the other prosecution material they goes to shown that, prima-facie when accused Paramesh who caught hold the shirt of the deceased-Khanappa and pushed him he fell down and sustained injury thereby he succumbed to injuries. Learned counsel also made submission that, looking to the complainant averments there is no prima- facie material to show that, these three petitioners assaulted the deceased-Khanappa thereby caused the injuries because for that reason only the Khanappa expired. He also made submission that, for similar set of allegations accused Nos.4 to 6 have already granted with anticipatory bail. Hence he submitted that, when there is no prima-facie material against the petitioners by imposing reasonable conditions petitioners No.1 to 3 may be admitted to regular bail.
5. Per Contra, the learned HCGP made the submission that, looking to the prosecution material, there :6: is a further statement of the complainant dated 25.04.2017, wherein he has stated that, accused No.1- Chandrappa, accused No.2-Manju were holding sticks in their hands and they assaulted the deceased-Khanappa on his head portion and other parts of the body. He also made the submission that, even looking to the statements of other witnesses they have also stated to the similar effect that, accused No.1 and 2 were holding the sticks and assaulted the deceased on his head and other parts of the body. Hence he submitted that, this material collected during the investigation by way of statements of witnesses also supports the case of the prosecution that, there is prima-facie material as against the petitioners. Hence he submitted that, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail and prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, Complaint and also the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Haveri rejecting the bail application. Perusing the original complaint, it is no doubt true, as :7: submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein, there is no specific allegation of assaulting the deceased on the head portion, but looking to the further statement of the complainant, which is dated 25.04.2017, there is a specific allegation that, accused No.1 Chandrappa, accused No.2-Manju were holding the sticks in their hands and they have assaulted the deceased- Khanappa on the head portion and other parts of the body. Not only that, I have also perused the statements of other witnesses namely Jagadish Yallappa Gurannanavar, Guddappa son of Balappa Harijan, Shekhappa Fakirappa Malager, Nagawwa Gurannanavar, Shobha Gurannanavar. Perusing the statements of all these witnesses, they have consistently stated that, Chandrappa and Manju were holding the sticks in their hands and they assaulted the deceased-Khanappa forcibly on the head portion. In this connection, I have also perused the post-mortem report. The Doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased-Khanappa, has given his opinion regarding the cause of death as "severe head injury". Therefore even :8: the medical opinion of the doctor regarding cause of death is consistent with the statements of the eye witnesses, so also the further statement of the complainant. Looking to the materials placed on record there are prima-facie materials sofar as accused No.1 and 2 i.e. Chandrappa and Manju is concerned that they involved in committing the alleged offence under Section 302 of IPC. Sofar as accused No.3-Ramesh is concerned there is no material to show that, he assaulted the deceased with any deadly weapons. Therefore considering the materials placed on record I am of the opinion that, petitioners No.1- Chandrappa, petitioner No.2-Manju are not entitled to be granted with bail.
7. Petition in respect of petitioners No.1 and 2 who are the accused No.1 and 2 is hereby rejected.
8. Petition in respect of petitioner No.3 who is accused No.3 is allowed, petitioner No.3/accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.72/2017 :9: registered by the respondent Police for the above said offences, subject to following conditions:
i. Petitioner No.3 has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner No.3 shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner No.3 shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE CKK