Karnataka High Court
Manju S/O Balappa Tekkennavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 30th day of May 2017
Before
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
Criminal Petition No.100868/2017
Between:
1. Manju, S/o Balappa Tekkennavar,
Age: 20 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Siddapur, Tq: Bilagi,
Dist: Bagalkot.
2. Vithal, S/o Marigouda Jammanakatti,
Age: 19 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Siddapur, Tq: Bilagi,
Dist: Bagalkot.
3. Gopal, S/o Hanamant Meti,
Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Siddapur, Tq: Bilagi,
Dist: Bagalkot.
4. Mahadev, S/o Hanamant Meti,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Siddapur, Tq: Bilagi,
Dist: Bagalkot.
5. Mallappa, S/o Dundappa Meti,
Age: 20 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Siddapur, Tq: Bilagi,
Dist: Bagalkot.
6. Venkappa,
S/o Siddappa Jakkannavar,
2
Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Siddapur, Tq: Bilagi,
Dist: Bagalkot.
7. Padiyappa,
S/o Pandappa Yandigeri,
Age: 29 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Siddapur, Tq: Bilagi,
Dist: Bagalkot.
8. Krishna, S/o Pandappa Karabani,
Age: 29 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Siddapur, Tq: Bilagi,
Dist: Bagalkot.
9. Sridhar,
S/o Siddappa Jammanakatti,
Age: 19 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Siddapur, Tq: Bilagi,
Dist: Bagalkot.
10. Ranganath,
S/o Siddappa Jammanakatti,
Age: 21 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Siddapur, Tq: Bilagi,
Dist: Bagalkot. ...Petitioners
(By Sri P.N.Hosamane, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka,
By P.S.I. Bilagi Police Station,
Represented by SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench. ...Respondent
(By Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, HCGP)
3
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. seeking to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners
releasing them on bail in the event of their arrest in Bilagi
Police Station Crime No.33 of 2017 for the offences
punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307,
504 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court, made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-Police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.33/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 19.02.2017, one Tukaram, S/o Hanamant Dalawai, filed a 4 complaint making the allegations that he was working as a contractor and his uncle's son by name Duragappa was having a sheep. The said Duragappa used to take his sheep to the sheep fight and won many prizes. On the occasion of Mayammadevi jatra in Siddapur village, a sheep fight was arranged. In the competition, the sheep of Duragappa was fixed to fight with sheep of Kariyappa Nadagaddi. But the said fixture was changed and the fight was fixed with a sheep of Bisanal village. The said Durgappa asked the organizer as to why the fixture was changed and, at that time, the petitioners took an argument and abused Durgappa in filthy language by taking his caste name. Thereafter, when Durgappa asked as to why they were abusing him, petitioner No.2 threw him down and squeezed his testicles, petitioner No.1 assaulted with hand and kicked him, and the remaining petitioners assaulted him with hands. On the basis of the above said complaint a case came to be registered against the petitioners.
5
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioners herein.
5. Looking to the complaint averments, it goes to show that the complainant as well as the petitioners were present in jatra where a sheep fight was arranged and the alleged incident had taken place in respect of said sheep fight of the complainant and of the petitioners.
6. Since the petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, in view of Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Court has to consider whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie, constitute 6 the offences under the provisions of the Act. Looking to the materials placed on record and so also the allegations made in the complaint, there is no specific mention that the petitioners abused the complainant with an intention to insult him in public view. The materials go to show that the quarrel was in respect of sheep fight and, in that connection, the complainant as well as the petitioners are said to have involved in the said incident. There are no specific allegations about the petitioners using the abusive words. Therefore, considering these materials, I am of the opinion that, at this stage, the allegations in the complaint will not constitute the offence under the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, Section 18 of the said Act will not come in the way of entertaining the petition for grant of anticipatory bail.
7. Sofar as the other allegations are concerned, though it is contended that the petitioners assaulted the complainant and his brother, as submitted by the learned Government Pleader, the injuries sustained by them are 7 simple in nature and they have already been discharged from the hospital and, at this stage, there is no danger to their lives. Apart from that, the petitioners have contended in the petition that they are innocent, they have not committed the alleged offences and that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioner can be released on bail by imposing reasonable conditions.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent Police is directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the aforesaid offences registered in the respondent Police Station Crime No.33/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i) Each of the petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of Investigating Authority.
ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
8
iii) Petitioners shall make themselves available before the IO for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv) Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bonds and the surety bonds.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms