Karnataka High Court
Mahalingappa S/O Holebasappa Teli, vs The State Of Karnataka, on 16 December, 2015
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101990/2015
BETWEEN:
1. MAHALINGAPPA
S/O HOLEBASAPPA TELI,
AGE:30 YEARS, OCC:AGRL.
R/O:JALIBERI, TQ:MUDHOL
DIST:BAGALKOT
2. GURAPPA
S/O HANAMANT TELI
AGE:25 YEARS, OCC:AGRL.
R/O:JALIBERI, TQ:MUDHOL
DIST:BAGALKOT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRASHANT S KADADEVAR, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD,
THROUGH ITS PSI, LOKAPUR P.S
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.VEENA HEGDE, HCGP)
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO
THE PETITIONERS, WHO ARE ACCUSED NO 1 & 2, IN
CRIME NO 145/2015 ON THE FILE BEFORE THE
LOKAPUR P.S FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.324,
326, 307, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 307, 504, 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.145/2015.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that complaint is lodged by one Venkanna. It is alleged in the complaint that complainant resides with his :3: brothers and they own a landed property bearing R.S.No.28 measuring 9 acres 22 guntas and said land is irrigated land, the land of petitioner No.1 is adjacent to his land and there is a dispute between them in resepct of boundaries of their lands. Hence, elders had advised them and settled the dispute. Inspite of these, they were nourishing ill-will. It is further alleged that on 25.09.2015 at the time of Ganesh immersion some crackers were fired near the house of petitioner No.1 Mahalingappa, hence, he came and asked why they were firing crackers before their house. Then they started to abuse them then elders had advised and settled the dispute. At that time also petitioner No.1 gave life threat to them. On 26.09.2015 at about 8.00 p.m. complainant was standing near Hanuman temple in order to give all accounts of Ganesh Committee and he was standing with other persons at that time petitioners came holding sticks and they started to abuse the complainant in filthy language and told that :4: he had fired cracker before his house and he is quarrelling with regard to earlier day incident of firing crackers and assaulted the complainant and his supporters and thereby attempted to commit the murder of the complainant and he sustained bleeding injury. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the petitioners for the alleged offence.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused No.1 and 2 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent- State.
4. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced along with the petition, so also the injury certificates produced in the case.
:5:
5. The injury certificates shows that so far as injuries sustained by Venkatesh is concerned, injury No.1 is grievous injury and injury No.2 is simple in nature. Injuries sustained by Sangappa is concerned, it is mentioned by the doctor that only one injury sustained, which is simple in nature. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that injured have already been discharged from the hospital, which fact is not disputed by the learned HCGP. This shows that injured are safe and there is no danger to their life. In the petition, it is contended by the petitioners that they are innocent and not involved in committing the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Looking to the injury certificates and injuries said to have been sustained and though the offence alleged under Section 307 of IPC is non-bailable offence, but it is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that :6: petitioners can be released on bail by imposing reasonable conditions.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent Police is directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 324, 326, 307, 504, 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.145/2015, subject to the following conditions:
i. Each petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court. ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the IO for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.:7:
iv. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR