Karnataka High Court
Sri.Manjunath S/O Masti Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2019
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
:1:
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101470/2019
BETWEEN
SRI.MANJUNATH S/O MASTI *MUKRI*
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER,
R/O: BASTIMAKKI, KEKKAR,
HONNAVAR TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J.S.SHETTY, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS HONNAVAR POLICE STATION AUTHORITIES,
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
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 THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
HONNAVARA P.S. CRIME NO.61/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE JMFC COURT, HONNAVARA, FILED AGAINST THE
PETITIONER, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 302 AND 504 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
* Corrected vide Court
Order dated 17.09.2019
Sd/-
(KSJ)
:2:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Honnavara P.S. Crime No.61/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC. Since from the date of his arrest, the petitioner/accused is in judicial custody. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner is praying for enlargement of the petitioner on regular bail among the grounds urged therein.
2. It is stated in the complaint that on filing of the complaint by the complainant namely Harish Jatti Mukri, the crime came to be registered against the accused for the aforesaid offences alleging that the complainant along with his father, mother and sister was residing at Kekkar, Bastimakki Village of Honnavar Taluk and was having landed property to an extent of 5 guntas, which stands in the name of his father and as the accused was not owing any house, he had been allowed by them to put up a house and to reside therein along with his wife and children. It is further stated by the complainant that when his father insisted the accused to vacate and handover the :3: same, the accused by consuming alcohol, picked up a quarrel with them and had abused them in filthy language.
3. It is further stated in the complaint by the complainant that on 12.02.2019 he had been to attend his work and while returning to his house at around 09:30 p.m., his sister had made a call to him and informed to come to the house immediately, as the accused had picked up a quarrel with them. Therefore, he rushed to the house immediately. At that relevant point of time, the accused was quarrelling and he had pushed the father of the complainant, as a result of that he fell on the ground and he became unconscious. Thereafter, father of the complainant was taken to the Government Hospital, Kumta in order to provide treatment for him and as they informed that it is a medico legal case, subsequently the deceased was taken to Honnavar Hospital in order to provide better treatment. But the complainant's father died at around 10:45 p.m. These are all the allegations made in the complaint filed by the complainant before the Police and based upon the complaint, crime came to be registered and thereafter proceeded with the case for investigation :4: and laid the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner who has taken me through the contents made in compliant said to be filed by the complainant, who is none other than the son of the deceased. But neither in the postmortem report issued by the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body nor in the inquest proceedings held over the dead body has not mentioned any specific injury sustained on the person of the deceased. It is submitted that the Doctor in the final opinion report has opined that the death is due to coronary insufficiency, consequent upon coronary artery disease. Whereas in the postmortem report, the Doctor has opined that the possibility of death on both the scenario mentioned could have been true provided the victim was suffering from any pre-existing disease or was/and under the influence of the drugs or alcohol. It is further submitted that there is no definite indication is made in the inquest proceedings held over the dead body of the deceased that the deceased had sustained injuries on the vital parts. But the allegation made in the complaint :5: that there was a quarrel took in between the accused and the deceased and the accused had pushed the deceased and as a result of which the deceased had fell on the ground and came into contact with forcible impact and became unconscious. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Kumta and also shifted to Honnavar Hospital in order to provide better treatment to save his life. However, this accused is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest without any specific allegation made in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer that the accused is the cause for the injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased said to have revealed in the postmortem report issued by the Doctor.
5. It is further submitted that the accused is an innocent person and he is the only earning member in the family and if the accused is supposed to be kept behind the bar for longer period, then the family members of the accused would loose their bread winner to eke out the life. Lastly the counsel submitted that the accused is ready to abide any terms imposed by this Court while granting bail :6: to him. These are all the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and seeking for regular bail to him.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP for the Sate has taken me through the averments made in the complaint that as this accused was not owing any house in order to reside there itself, but the accused was allowed by the deceased and his family members to put up a house in order to reside therein along with his wife and children. Subsequently, the deceased said to be the father of the complainant insisted the accused to vacate from the house. Therefore, the accused had picked up quarrel with the deceased and abused them in filthy language by consuming alcohol. Whereas, on 12.02.2019, as the complainant had been to attend his work and while he was returning to the house at around 09:30 p.m., his sister informed him to come to the house immediately, as the accused had picked up quarrel with the father. When he came to the house, the accused was quarrelling with the deceased and had forcibly pushed him. Due to that he fell on the ground and impact on the part of the body and as a :7: result of that the deceased went unconscious. Thereafter, crime came to be registered against the accused. The Investigating Officer investigated the case thoroughly by recording statement of witnesses and so also conducted the inquest over the dead body. Apart from that Investigating Officer conducted spot mahazar in the present of panch witnesses and laid the charge sheet. Mere because in the inquest proceedings it does not reveal that there is specific injuries inflicted on the person of the deceased and so also there is no specific opinion relating to the cause of death, it cannot be a case for seeking regular bail, as where the accused committed offences and the cause for the death of the deceased. These are all the contentions taken by the learned HCGP and seeking for dismissal of the bail petition.
7. In this back drop of the strenuous contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and so also counter made by the learned HCGP for the State, it is relevant to state that the Doctor who has issued final opinion as to the cause for death, it is due to coronary insufficiency, consequent upon coronary artery disease, :8: but the postmortem report issued by the Doctor and so also finally issued the final opinion report which indicates that about cause of death of deceased. Whereas, the incident had taken place that the father of the complainant had insisted the accused to vacate from the house, as wherein he was given permission to reside by putting up a house along with his wife and children. For that reasons, the quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused and on the fateful day on 12.02.2019, the complainant had been to attend his work and while he was returning at around 09:30 p.m., at that time, his sister made a call to him by saying that the accused had picked up a quarrel with their father and the complainant rushed to the house and at that time, the accused was quarrelling with the father of the complainant and pushed him forcibly, as a result of that he fell on the ground and on impact on his person, he went unconscious. He was shifted to the Government Hospital at Kumta and thereafter he was shifted to the Honnavar Hospital for the purpose to save his life. Even though that the deceased was got admitted therein, he last his breath at around 10:45 p.m. :9:
8. The Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused by recording statement of witnesses and also conducted seizure mahazar as well as spot mahazar in the presence of panch witness. But there is no specific materials placed on record that the accused was the cause for the death of the deceased, as per the opinion made by the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body, as it is contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking regular bail.
9. As already been stated that Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet by securing material documents and that materials are enough to lay the charge sheet against the accused, as where accused is required to face trial for the offences lugged against him. But similarly, the materials which collected by the Investigating Officer are not enough materials to decline the relief of bail as sought for by the accused.
10. However, the learned HCGP submitted that if the petitioner/accused is supposed to be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of prosecution case : 10 : and destroy the evidences. As this apprehension expressed by the learned HCGP could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons and as well as the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with like sum surety to the satisfaction of Court, as where the case in C.C. No.412/2019 arise out of Crime No.61/2019 of Honnavar P.S. is pending.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper or
hamper the case of prosecution
witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the
concerned Court on all the dates of
hearing without fail.
: 11 :
(iv) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month in first week on Sunday as per the English monthly calendar in between 10:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. before the concerned SHO pending disposal of the entire case.
(v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Uttara Kannada without prior permission from the competent Court of law.
(vi) The petitioner shall not indulge with any other criminal activities henceforth.
(vii) If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh