Karnataka High Court
Amresh vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200849/2017
Between:
Amresh S/o Nagshetty Biradar
Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Narayanpur, Tq. Aurad (B)
Dist. Bidar
... Petitioner
(By Sri Syed Mastan, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
Through Aurad (B) Police Station
Dist. Bidar - 585 259
(Representing by learned
Addl. State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bench at Kalaburagi)
... Respondent
(By Sri P.S. Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. praying to allow the petition and enlarge the
accused/petitioner on bail in Crime No.82/2017 of Aurad
Police Station, Dist. Bidar, which is registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506 r/w
Section 34 of IPC.
2
This petition is coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.82/2017 of Aurad Police Station, Bidar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, husband of the complainant had got six brothers and they were having landed properties and all the brothers divided the land and were cultivating their respective shares. It is further alleged that ten days prior to the incident, the deceased and his brother Amresh were quarreling with each other about the distribution of the property. In that light, on 21.05.2017, in the morning hours, the deceased- Kamshetty went to the land for the purpose of ploughing and later, the complainant and her son 3 Rajanikanth also went to the said land to provide him food. At that time, they saw Kamshetty was being assaulted by the petitioner-Amresh and his both sons namely Revanappa and Suresh were assaulting Kamshetty with their fists and kicked on the testicles of the deceased. By seeing the complainant and her son, they ran away from that place. When the complainant asked the deceased, the deceased told that the petitioner/accused-Amresh assaulted him and thereafter, kicked on the testicles and caused injuries and other persons have also assaulted him with fists. Subsequently, he was shifted to Aurad Government Hospital and there, the doctor declared him dead. Therefore, complaint has been lodged against the accused persons and on the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered against the accused persons. 4
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is innocent and he is not involved in the alleged crime. He would further contend that the property has been divided between the brothers and there was no animosity with regard to the landed property. Petitioner is aged 65 years and he is suffering with old age ailments. Because of the old enmity and only to grab the property of the accused, the complainant is trying to take undue advantage of natural death of Kamshetty and a false case has been registered against the petitioner. He would also contend that petitioner hails from a respectable family and has got both movable and immovable properties therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded. He would contend that if the 5 petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently contended that there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the petitioner has kicked on the testicles of the deceased and caused injuries to the testicles and as a result of the same, the deceased has died. He would further contend that the investigation is under progress and at this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is likelihood of he being absconded and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have gone through the contents of the complaint, FIR and other material produced along with the petition.
6
7. On going through the contents of the complaint, it would indicate that the complainant and her son are the eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and immediately after the incident, even the deceased has disclosed the name of the petitioner and has also specifically averred that the petitioner has assaulted and kicked on the testicles of the deceased. There is specific overt-act against the petitioner having caused the death of the deceased. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the deceased has died a natural death and a false case has been registered against him, investigation is still in progress and final opinion has also not been obtained with regard to the cause of the death. Under the said circumstances, it is difficult to appreciate the cause of death. At this juncture, this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 7
However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move the bail application in the event of filing of the charge sheet.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB* Ct: vk