Karnataka High Court
Somashekhar Jatteppa Kachapur vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101052 OF 2019
BETWEEN
SOMASHEKHAR JATTEPPA KACHAPUR
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: VARUR, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R. B. CONTRACTOR, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HUBBALLI RURAL POLICE,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDNIG,
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL AND TO RELEASE THE
PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO:5) IN HUBBALLI RURAL P.S.
CRIME NO:306/2018, C.C. NO: 229/2019 U/S 143, 147, 148,
324, 307, 302, 120(B), 201 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
: 2:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.306/2018 (CC No.229/2019 of Hubballi Rural Police Station) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 120(b), 201 R/W 149 IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned HCGP for respondent- State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that, on 23.11.2018 at about 8.00 pm, the brother of the complainant came to his poultry farm, situated beside Aralikatti road and went back to his house at Chabbi at about 10.00 p.m., by which time the complainant was in poultry farm. On 24.11.2018 at about 12.30 a.m. when the complainant was in his poultry farm, one Mailari Basappa Madiwaler called him over a mobile and informed that when he was at Chabbi village the : 3:
brother of complainant Basavaraj called him over mobile and instructed him to come to his house to go to Yatri Hotel for dinner. Accordingly, when he came to the house of Basavaraj, one Jagadish Basavaneppa Pashapur also came there and all of them went on motorcycle bearing No.KA-25/EU-3511 to Yatri Hotel. After having dinner, they were returning back to Chabbi village on their motorcycle and when they came near Agadi cross, a Tata Sumo vehicle came from Haveri side and dashed to their motorcycle, due to which all of them fell down at different distances. At that time, 4-5 persons got down from the said Tata Sumo vehicle by holding deadly weapons in their hands and assaulted the brother of the complainant, Sri. Basavaraj. One of the assailants came to assault the said Mailari, but he ran away in a field, in darkness. After departure of said Tata Sumo vehicle, he came to the spot of the incident and found Basavaraj with injuries on his neck, forearm and on left little finger and he was dead. He also found : 4:
that Jagadish was also injured. Immediately, he called an ambulance and took the injured Jagadish and the dead body of Basavaraj to Sucharaya Hospital, Hubballi. He has further stated that he is in a position to identify those five persons, who are the assailants. On the basis of the complaint, a case came to be registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner-accused No.5 that he is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was not present at the place of incident on the alleged date and there is no specific overt acts attributed as against accused No.5. The name of the petitioner-accused No.5 is also not found in the complaint in the earliest point of time. The only allegation made as against accused No.5 is that he was present at the place of incident on the alleged date and he instigated other accused to commit the crime. No specific overt acts as against this petitioner-accused : 5:
No.5. He further submitted that the statement of eyewitnesses has been recorded after ten days of the incident, which itself creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. All the family members of the petitioner- accused have been falsely implicated in the case. He is ready to abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court. It is further submitted that accused No.4, 6 and 8 have already been enlarged on bail and on the ground of parity this petitioner-accused No.5 is also entitled to bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP has vehemently argued and contended that the petitienr-
accused No.5, along with other accused persons has committed a heinous offence of murder. There are eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The vehicle, which was used for commission of offence is belongs to accused No.4 and the petitioner-accused No.5 was also present at the time of alleged incident and he instigated : 6:
other accused persons to assault with lethally weapons. She further submitted that, if this petitioner-accused No.5 is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court, which may hamper the trial. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by both the counsel for parties and perused the records.
7. Admittedly, in the instant case, charge-sheet has been filed. A close reading of the charge-sheet material shows that the allegation as against accused No.5 is that he was the person who instigated other accused to assault the deceased with lethal weapons.
No specific overt acts are alleged as against petitioner- accused No.5. Even the records disclose that already accused Nos.4, 6 and 8 are released on bail in Criminal Petition Nos.100872/2019 and 100845/2019 c/w : 7:
100865/2019. Even on the ground of parity, the petitioner-accused No.5 is entitled to be released on bail. Under the similar facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed and the petitioner-accused No.5 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in crime No.306/2018 (CC No.229/2019 of Hubballi Rural Police Station) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 120(b), 201 R/W 149 IPC, subject to following conditions:
i. Petitioner-accused No.5 shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the Court.
ii. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission.
: 8:
iii. He shall not tamper with prosecution evidence directly or indirectly. iv. He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days before the investigating officer till conclusion of trial.
v. He shall regularly appear before the trial Court at the time of trial.
Sd/-
JUDGE yan