Karnataka High Court
Sri. Pandu S/O. Maruteppa Halageri vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 August, 2018
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101158 OF 2018
BETWEEN
SRI. PANDU S/O. MARUTEPPA HALAGERI,
AGE:35 YRS,OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O. GINIGERI,TAL:KOPPAL,
DIST:KOPPAL. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B MALAGOUDAR, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH PSI KOPPAL RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
SPP OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE ACCUSED
NO.2/PETITIONER ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN, SC(AC)NO.30/2018
KOPPAL RURAL P.S.CRIME NO.22/2018 U/SECS.143, 147,
148, 341, 504, 307, 506, 109, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC AND ST
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989.
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Koppal Rural P.S. in Crime No.22/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 307, 506, 109,201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 besides Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Since from the date of his arrest, the petitioner is in judicial custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is praying for enlargement of the petitioner on regular bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent - State. :3:
3. It is stated in the complaint that the nephew of the complainant by name Ganesh, who works in KSRTC and he is a Kabaddi player and used to take part in various competitions and was successfully winning in a tournament and along with that he trains young boys in his village and accordingly, he use to participate in Kabaddi tournament along with his team and he has won in many competitions. In this regard, there was enmity developed between the said Ganesh and accused No.1 and others. On 7.2.2018 at about 6.00 p.m. when the complainant-Channappa and Gopi standing near bus stand, at that time Ganesh came there and invited both of them for tea and as such all together went to Manjunath Hotel and Ganesh told them that he will get recharge his mobile phone and come back. The complainant saw Ganesh going to Mobile Currency shop, while Ganesh was returning, he saw accused No.1 namely Vijay Maruteppa Haligeri and associates :4: came there and started assaulting Ganesh from stick, iron rods indiscriminately on his body and accused persons took injured Ganesh in a motor cycle to the farm land belonging to accused No.1-Vijaya Maruteppa Haligeri and therein accused persons again assaulted the injured Ganesh with deadly weapons all over his body and thereafter, accused persons threw injured Ganesh near District Hospital, Koppal. On filing of the complaint by complainant a case came to be registered for the alleged offences and thereafter, the investigation was conducted by the Investigation Officer and charge sheet has been laid against the accused persons in S.C.(AC)No.30/2018 which is pending before the District and Sessions Court, Koppal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has taken through the averments made in the complaint said to be filed by the relative of the injured Ganesh. But the incident :5: was taken on 07.02.2018 in between 6 to 9 p.m. Wherein, complainant as well as injured-Ganesh were said to be present near by his motor cycle by that time accused No.1 as well as other accused came and assaulted Ganesh and made him to get down from the motor cycle and started assaulting with iron rod and club. But there is no specific overt act against this accused causing injury to Ganesh, but the allegation reveals against the accused No.2/petitioner is said to be assaulted with means of club on the part of his left hand, but there is fracture injury on his right leg. It is further contended that allegations found in the complaint is against accused No.1 and there is no specific overt act attributed against the present petitioner and further alleged that abusing the injured Ganesh by held his caste is clearly concocted and created one, neither in the complaint nor in the investigating material, there is no mention regarding abusing by taking his caste and despite of it, the :6: crime came to be registered by the respondent - Police against the petitioner for the said offences just to give harassment to the accused persons. However, the petitioner is in judicial custody since form the date of his arrest. It is further contended that the petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court, while granting bail to him. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent - State opposes the petition filed by the petition by submitting that charge leveled against the present petitioner is seriousness in nature found in the statement of witnesses as well as reveals in the would certificate and it appears that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner/accused and accordingly, the learned HCGP prayed to reject the bail petition, as the petitioner does not deserve for bail as sought for.
:7:
6. Having regard to the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned HCGP for the respondent - State and having gone through the materials, that is the complaint as well as the substances reflected in the FIR and also the materials collected by the Investigating Officer, it reveals that the allegations made against the petitioner is taken place on account of the enmity between the two groups of Kabaddi players as accused No.1 and his associates being the accused persons. The allegation leveled against the present petitioner/accused is that he is also participated with accused No.1, during incident and assaulted with means of sticks on the part of his left hand, but the injury certificate issued by Doctor shows that there is fracture injury inflicted on right leg of injured-Ganesh.
7. This accused/petitioner has filed successive bail petition by urging various grounds as well as developmental circumstances. Therefore, it is relevant :8: rely on the ratio laid down in AIR 1978 SC 527 in the case of Babu Singh and others vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it has held as thus:
"2. Briefly we will state the facts pertinent to the present petition and prayer and proceed thereafter to ratiocinate on the relevant criteria in considering the interlocutory relief of bail. Right at the beginning, we must mention that, at an earlier stage, their application for bail was rejected by this Court on September 7, 1977. But an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another, on a later occasion, giving more materials, further developments and different considerations. While we surely must set store by this circumstance, we cannot accede to the faint plea that we are barred from second consideration at a later stage. An interim direction is not a conclusive adjudication, and updated reconsideration is not over turning an earlier negation. In this view, we entertain the application and evaluate the merits pro and con.
Wherein it is observed that, as there is no bar to file successive bail petitions on developmental circumstances. However, it can not be said that enough materials for decline bail to the accused.
8. Therefore, keeping in view all the grounds urged in this bail petition, I am of the considered :9: opinion that petitioner is deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a likesum surety to the satisfaction of the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal in S.C.(A.C)No.30/2018 where the case is pending.
(2) The petitioner shall not tamper or
hamper the case of prosecution
witnesses.
(3) The petitioner shall appear before the
Court below on all the dates of
hearing without fail.
(4) The petitioner shall not indulge with
any other criminal activities
henceforth.
: 10 :
If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
Sd/-
JUDGE VB