Karnataka High Court
Mallappa S/O Basappa Kumbali vs The State Of Karantaka on 17 August, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101515/2017
BETWEEN:
MALLAPPA,
S/O BASAPPA KUMBALI,
AGE: 20 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BELAGALI, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARANTAKA,
THROUGH MAHALINGAPUR POLICE STATION,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE
PETITIONER IN MAHALINGAPUR POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.50 OF 2017 REGISTERED FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 302 OF IPC.
:2:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is the petition filed by petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No.50/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that wife of the deceased one Smt.Rajeshwari is the complainant in this case. She lodged the complaint stating that herself, her husband, the parents-in-law and the accused are residing together. The accused addicted to habit of drinking alcohol and he was wandering and wasting the money even he has borrowed the loan from other persons. Therefore, the husband of the complainant advising the accused person not to do like that. Because of that reason the accused was having grudge towards the deceased. The further averments :3: goes to show that on the date of the alleged incident the husband of the complainant went outside taking the two wheeler vehicle and at about 8.30 p.m. one Ishwar Ramachandra informed the complainant over phone that the accused person committed the murder of the deceased at such and such place. Thereafterwards the complainant and her elders went to the said place and they have seen that the her husband was lying in pool of blood with injuries and the motorcycle was also lying on his body. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that even looking to the prosecution material, it goes to show that the incident took place in a grave and sudden provocation. He also made the :4: submission that there was no intention on the part of the present petitioner to commit the murder of his brother i.e. deceased. So also he submitted that as per the prosecution case CW16, 17 and 18 are the eyewitnesses. Learned counsel submitted that looking to their version and the statement of Ishwar Ramachandra-the informant to the complainant, there is no consistency in their statement. Hence, he submitted that now investigation of the case is completed and charge sheet is also filed, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be admitted to regular bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition submitting that there are eyewitnesses to the incident and even medical opinion is also consistent with the case of the prosecution and hence the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
:5:
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced along with the petition, so also the order of the learned Sessions Judge, rejecting the bail application of the present petitioner.
7. Looking to the materials placed on record and the statement of witnesses CW16, 17 and 18, they are the eyewitness as per the prosecution case who personally witnessed the incident that present petitioner committed the murder of the deceased. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not an intentional act by the petitioner is concerned, materials goes to show that he carried the deadly weapon along with him and at the spot he committed the murder of his own brother-the deceased. In view of this fact prima facie it cannot be said that it is in a grave and sudden provocation or it is not a premeditated act. Therefore, the prosecution material :6: goes to show that there are reasonable grounds to prima facie establish that it is the incident of murder attracting 302 of the I.P.C. When there are eyewitnesses and the medical evidence is also supporting the case, I am of the opinion that it is not fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK