Karnataka High Court
Sarojamma vs State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2869/2014
BETWEEN:
1. SAROJAMMA
W/O. BEEMANAGOUDA
AGE : 55 YEARS,
OCC : AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HONNALLI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST:BELLARY- 571102.
2. MALLIKARJUNA
S/O BEMMANAGOUDA
AGE:35 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O :HONNALLI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST:BELLARY-571102.
3. SHIVARAJ
S/O BEEMANAGOUDA
AGE:30 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O HONNALLI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST:BELLARY-571102.
4. VISHWANATH
S/O BHEEMANAGOUDA
AGE:32 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
2
R/O HONNALLI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: BELLARY - 571102.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V M SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND :
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR
OF POLICE ,
RURAL POLICE STATION
BELLARY.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HIGH COURT
GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST
IN CR. NO.99/2014 OF BELLARY RURAL P.S., BELLARY,
WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448,
504, 109, 323, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State. Perused the records.
2. The allegations made against the petitioners are that, there was some civil dispute between the petitioners and complainant - Neelamma W/o.Chidananda and her family members since four years and in this background petitioners were threatening the complainant and her family members often and often. In this backdrop, on 22.03.2014 at about 7 p.m. when the complainant and her mother were present in the house of one Rajashekar, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 started quarrelling with complainant and her mother and in that context it is alleged that petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 have assaulted on the stomach and chest of complainant's mother and due to the impact of blows, it is alleged that the complainant's mother had died on the spot. It is also alleged that petitioner No.4 has also abetted the offence. 4
3. Learned counsel for petitioners strenuously argues that the post-mortem report discloses that the death was due to acute myocardial infarction as a result of coronary atherosclerosis. He has also contended that neither the P.M. report nor the inquest report discloses any injuries on the body of deceased. The learned Sessions Judge, in fact, in his order has observed that, at this stage definitely Court cannot come to the conclusion that the death was not due to the impact of blows given by petitioner Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. According to the complainant, petitioner No.4 has also supported petitioner Nos.1 to 3 for committing the offence. However, petitioner No.1 is a lady and aged about more than 55 years and petitioner No.4 is said to have been not present at the spot, and hence, they are entitled for bail.
4. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, petitioner Nos.1 and 4 are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. However, the specific overt 5 acts of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, their petition deserves to be dismissed particularly under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity). Though the offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life, considering the age and overt act of petitioner Nos.1 and 4 and also the proviso under Section 437(2) of Cr.P.C. they are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by petitioners is partly allowed.
Bail petition of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is hereby rejected.
Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.99/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 109, 6 302 and 504 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., subject to the following conditions -
i) Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer or jurisdictional Magistrat, as the case may be.
ii) Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer / Committal Court / Trial Court, as the case may be, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order
iii) Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 shall not indulge themselves in tampering the prosecution witnesses.7
iv) Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 shall make themselves available to trial Court on all the future hearing dates, unless prevented by any genuine cause.
v) Petitioner No.4 shall mark his attendance once in 15 days on Sunday between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. before the jurisdictional police, till filing of the charge sheet or for a period of two months, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm/