Karnataka High Court
Nagaraj @ Nagappa S/O. Basappa Padigodi vs State Of Karnataka on 14 November, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102256/2017
BETWEEN
NAGARAJ @ NAGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA PADIGODI
AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:PRIVATE WORK,
R/O. NAJIK LAKMAPUR, TQ:HAVERI,
NOW R/O. SUNGAR COMPOUND,
SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD,
THROUGH HAVERI RURAL POLICE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO DIRECTING TO RELEASE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
THE CASE BEARING C.C.NO.709 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, HAVERI,
ARISING OUT OF HAVERI RURAL P.S. CR.76 OF 2017 FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147,
148, 323, 302, 447, 504, 506 READ WITH 149 OF IPC.
: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 438 of Cr.P.C., in connection with Haveri Rural P.S. Crime No.76/2017 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 302, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, due to apprehension of arrest by the Police, this criminal petition is filed by the petitioner by urging various grounds and seeking for anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest, even though non-bailable warrant is on force against this accused in C.C. No.709/2017.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Neelavva given a complaint before the Police by mentioning the name of all 30 persons alleged to have caused death of her husband Siddappa and also attempted to commit the murder of one Banneppa, as where accused were committed the :3: murder of her husband and also inflicted injuries over the person of Banneppa while he was on treatment in the hospital that he succumbed to the injuries. As where the complainant herself, her husband the deceased Siddappa, her son and her uncle the deceased Banneppa were engaged in agricultural work on 19.05.2017, at that time, the accused persons all of a sudden picked up quarrel with the deceased and committed murder and same has been narrated in her complaint filed before the Police. Whereas, in the material allegation, it reveals as the land bearing R.S. No.25 measuring 27 acres 9 guntas situated in the limit of Najik Lakmapur Village, out of the said land 15 acres was standing in the name of Siddappa and 12 acres 9 guntas in the name of his father Guddappa Ramappa Padigodi. As regard to that alienated properties, the case is pending between the plaintiff and the defendant in O.S. No.88/2016. On 19.05.2017 wherein the deceased Siddappa gone to the said land :4: for the purpose of attending agricultural work along with the deceased Banneppa. When they were attending agricultural work in the village, the 16 persons, who are already charge sheeted came to the said land, armed with means of axe, sticks and kandli by screaming and abusing them. In the meanwhile, all accused who were present at the scene of crime, committed the murder of Siddappa by choosing vital parts i.e., head. Accused No.2 assaulted the deceased Siddappa with stick on his knee, accused No.3 assaulted with axe on the head and accused No.4 assaulted on his right waist portion with kandli and caused the injuries. The deceased Siddappa alleged to have fell on the ground and was crying and accused Nos.5 and 6 kicked him and also fisted with hands. However, all the accused have the role in committing the murder of the deceased Siddappa and also caused the death of deceased Banneppa who alleged to have sustained injuries with means of deadly weapons used :5: by the accused. Subsequent to filing of the complaint by the complainant, a crime came to be registered and thereafter investigation was taken up by the Investigating Officer, where he laid the charge sheet against the accused in C.C. No.709/2017.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP for the respondent - State.
4. Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments contended that the petitioner arrayed as accused No.16 in the charge sheet laid by the Police before the Investigating Officer, there is no overt act attributed against him in causing the death of the deceased Siddappa and also in causing the injuries over the person i.e., Banneppa, who later succumbed to the injuries while on treatment. But the Police are making hectic efforts to arrest this accused without there being any reasons. However, charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer by recording the statement of :6: witnesses and also conducting the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. But on perusal of the entire materials on record, it does not disclose the specific overt act attributed against the accused for having armed with deadly weapons at the time of committing the murder of the deceased Siddappa and also causing injuries over the person of Banneppa. It is further contended that the petitioner family consisting his college going children and he is only the member in the family having source to eke out and if the petitioner is supposed to be apprehended by the Police, the family of the petitioner will loose their bread winner and will be ruined in the society. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not at all committed the alleged offences. Despite of it, he has been lugged into the alleged crime with an oblique motive to harass him. Apart from that, it is submitted that the petitioner hails from a respectable family and having respect in :7: the eye of society. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having cardiac problem. Moreover the petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail to him. Therefore, on all these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner praying for bail by considering the grounds as urged in the petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned SPP during the course of arguments taken through the averments made in the complaint and also the reflection made in the FIR recorded by the Police for the alleged offence under Section 302 of IPC, committing the murder of Siddappa and also caused the dearth of deceased Banneppa. Whereas, this petitioner being arrayed as accused in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer, but he has arrayed as accused No.24 in the FIR recorded by the Police in Crime No.26/2017. The complainant's husband Siddappa who alleged to have inflicted injuries over the person at the time of :8: committing alleged incident by all the accused with deadly weapons and also caused injuries and same has been reflected in the postmortem report issued by the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body. But the incident occurred on 19.05.2017, wherein the complainant's husband, deceased Siddappa had been to the land for attending agricultural work, in the meanwhile, all the accused gathered there and picked up quarrel and also assaulted the deceased Siddappa and Banneppa with means of axe and other agricultural implements and the same has been revealed in the charge sheet laid by the Police. Whereas, this accused is absconding since from the date of committing the alleged offences and that itself indicates that there is a role made by the accused in causing the death of the deceased Banneppa and also the deceased Siddappa, who is none other than the husband of the complainant. Whereas, the accused persons used deadly weapons :9: as axe, chopper and clubs at the time of committing the murder of Siddappa. Wherein the accused were shouting and abusing the deceased Siddappa at the time of committing the alleged offences and they assaulted the deceased choosing the vital part, the head and caused his death as revealed in the postmortem report. However, it is further stated that the accused No.2 assaulted Siddappa with means of stick on his knee and accused No.3 assaulted with means of axe choosing his vital part head and accused No.4 assaulted on his right waist portion with kandli and accused No.7 with means of stick on his head and where the deceased fell on the ground and died due to the injuries inflicted over the person of the deceased. It is further submitted that the petitioner is absconding from the date of committing the alleged offences and that itself indicates that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner in committing the offences i.e., took away the life of the deceased : 10 : Siddappa and Banneppa. Therefore, the learned SPP on all these grounds sought for dismissal of the petition the petitioner does not deserve for anticipatory bail.
6. Having regard to these strenuous contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail to this petitioner arrayed as accused No.16, as the accused is absconding since from the date of committing the alleged offences. However, it is relevant to state that on 19.05.2017 the incident occurred at the scene of crime and on that day complainant herself, her husband Siddappa as well as her son and also her uncle Banneppa had been to the land bearing R.S. No.25 situated at Najik Lakmapur Village in order to flow the land and at about 09:30 a.m. on the aforesaid date, the accused Nos.1 to 30 all of a sudden came to the said land by holding deadly weapons like axe, chopper, kandli, sticks and other : 11 : agricultural implements by shouting and screaming and entered the land and assaulted the complainant's husband Siddappa with means of deadly weapons by choosing vital part of head and as a result of that he sustained injuries and also assaulted the injured Banneppa. Wherein the deceased Siddappa was taken to the Hospital and it was declared that he brought dead and the injured Banneppa also succumbed to the injuries while he was taking treatment. The Investigating Officer who taken up the investigation, recorded the statement of witnesses and conducted the spot mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and seized those deadly weapons used by the accused at the time of committing the murder of deceased Siddappa and also caused injuries over the person of Banneppa who had been succumbed to the injuries while on treatment.
7. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Basappa Hanumanthappa Kasambi, : 12 : Ramesh Yallappa Subargatti, Malatesh Hanumanthappa Kasambi and such other witnesses who were the eyewitnesses to the incident, as where the accused persons assaulted the complainant's husband Siddappa and the deceased Banneppa by choosing the vital parts of the head, as revealed in the postmortem report issued by the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body. Whereas, the petitioner is absconding since from date of committing the alleged offence and that itself indicates that there are prima facie materials in committing the alleged offences that too heinous offence under Section 302 of IPC and other offences as reflected in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer before the Committal Court. Therefore, at this stage, if the accused are supposed to released on bail, certainly there shall be an adverse impact on the society. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons and as well as the circumstances of the case, I am of the : 13 : considered opinion that the petitioner is not deserving for the bail sought for. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.16 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh