Karnataka High Court
Shri Chidanand Balakrishna Kammar vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 September, 2022
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102454 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SHRI CHIDANAND BALAKRISHNA KAMMAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC. BLACKSMITH,
R/O. PARAKANAHATTI, TQ. HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANAND KUMAR ASHTEKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH YAMAKANMARADI POLICE STATION,
DISTRICT BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY HCGP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI PRASHANTH V.MOGALI., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF
CR.P.C, SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED
NO.11 ON REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.185/2022 OF
YAMAKANMARDI POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC.143, 147, 148, 109, 120(B), 302, 504,
506, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 25(1A) IA ACT, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.P No. 102454 of 2022
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.11 under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.185/2022 of Yamakanmardi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 120(B), 302, 504, 506 R/W 149 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecutions is that, one Smt. Ashwini Parashuram Halakarni has filed complaint stating that one Basavaraj Bharamappa Galate (accused No.1) had run away with the daughter of one Irappa Chougala, who is also the chairman of Basaveshwar Bank and the said accused No.1 doubted the complainant's husband that he was supplying the information about the daughter of chairman to him. In another incident, -3- CRL.P No. 102454 of 2022 the son of accused No.1 got hit by a ball and therefore, there was a fight with the complainant's husband and the elder by name Kallappa Siddappa Bhujamugol intervened and pacified the quarrel. In spite of the said aspect, accused No.1 is having grudge against the husband of complainant. It is further stated that about 25 days prior to filing of the complaint, the mother-in-law of complainant was roaming in front of their house, the said accused No.1-Basavaraj came from the back side in a very speed manner and stopped vehicle right in front of the mother-in-law and when she asked why he was doing so, the said accused No.1- Basavaraj and 4 others got down to quarrel with the complainant's husband. There are cases registered of such a kind in the Yamakanmardi police station. It is further stated that, on 16.07.2022 at around 10:45 a.m, the complainant got a call from Mahantesh Maruti Ramgonhatti who -4- CRL.P No. 102454 of 2022 is resident of Sindihatti stated that as they were coming back from Hanuman temple, her husband was riding a bike by No.KA.49/L-796 and at that time, accused Nos.1 to 8 and others with an intention of killing the complainant's husband Parashuram, dashed to his bike with eco sport car No.KA-22/MA-5280 intentionally and there was one more car where many other got down with dangerous weapons. The Parashuram had fallen to the side of the road by that time and the accused stated that they were waiting since many days and they had planned the same on Saturday. Accused Nos.1, 8 and 7 put red chilly powder into the eyes of deceased Parashuram and started to shout that they should kill him. At that time, accused No.1 with the weapon he had in his hand assaulted the Parashuram on the head, accused No.2 assaulted the Parashuram on his chin, accused No.3 assaulted him on his right forehand, accused No.5 -5- CRL.P No. 102454 of 2022 assaulted him on his left hand and accused No.6 assaulted him on the chest and others were giving bad words and hitting Parashuram. Thereafter hearing the same, the complainant went to the spot and saw the dead body with bleeding injuries. Accused persons get into the car and went away. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.185/2022 of Yamakanmardi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 120(B), 302, 504, 506 R/W 149 of IPC. The F.I.R came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 8 and others. This petitioner came to be arrested on 21.07.2022 and he is in judicial custody. The petitioner-accused No.11 had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.5504/2022 and the same came to be rejected by the learned VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagagi, Sitting at Chikkodi vide order dated 11.08.2022. Therefore, -6- CRL.P No. 102454 of 2022 the petitioner-accused No.11 is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, the complainant is not an eye witness to the incident and she has narrated the incident as stated by one Mahantesh Maruti Ramgonhatti. It is his further submission that in the complaint it is stated that, the deceased was assaulted with Machete (Machchu). It is his further submission that in the remand application it is alleged that, this petitioner-accused No.11 has made ready talwar at the instance of the accused for their use and there is a discrepancy with regard to the weapon which is made ready by this -7- CRL.P No. 102454 of 2022 petitioner and the weapon used by the accused to assault the deceased. It is his further submission that the petitioner was not aware for what purpose the accused have got made the talwar through this petitioner. It is his further submission that there was no any grudge between the petitioner and the victim and it is between the victim and accused No.1, who is supported by accused Nos.2 to 7. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contends that, the offences alleged against the petitioner is heinous offences. The investigation is in progress and if the petitioner is granted bail at this stage, he will hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses. The voluntary statement of accused No.1 reveal that this petitioner has prepared talwar as per the orders of accused No.1. If the petitioner is granted bail at this stage when -8- CRL.P No. 102454 of 2022 the investigation is still in progress, there are chances of this petitioner hampering the investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses. The role of each of the accused including this petitioner is to be ascertained and the same can be done only after completing the investigation and filing of the final report. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the averments of the complaint, F.I.R and remand application.
7. As per the accusation at present against this petitioner-accused No.11 is that he prepared and gave talwars to the accused at their instance. In the complaint it is stated that accused Nos.1 to 8 and others have committed the murder of -9- CRL.P No. 102454 of 2022 deceased Parashuram. What is the role of this petitioner-accused No.11 in commission of the murder of Parashuram is a matter of investigation and filing of final report. The offences alleged against the petitioner are heinous offences. The investigation is still in progress. The role of this petitioner-accused No.11 is to be ascertained after completing the investigation and filing of the final report. Therefore, at this stage when the investigation is still in progress, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
8. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed.
9. The petitioner-accused No.11 is at liberty to file bail petition before the Sessions Court after filing of the final report.
Sd/-
JUDGE AM