Karnataka High Court
Suresh Parasappa Beladhaddi vs State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101485 OF 2017.
BETWEEN:
SURESH PARASAPPA BELADHADDI
AGE:27 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS
R/O:GANGAPUR PET, GADAG
GADAG DIST
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R. M. JAVED, ADVOCATE.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GADAG TOWN P. S.
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT
BENGALURU
... RESPONDENT
(BY RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS APPLICATION AND
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL, IN CONNECTION WITH
GADAG TOWN POLICE STATION CRIME NO.192 OF 2017 FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341,
307, 504, 506, 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) OF THE SC/ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015.
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION 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 the Criminal Procedure Code seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No.192/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
3. Learned counsel made the submission that there are case and counter cases and even the case was registered against the complainant and others of this case in Crime No.193/2017. It was also for the alleged offence under Section 307 along with the other offences. Hence, :3: he submitted that there is a false implication of the present petitioner. He is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. Counsel also made the submission that the injured has been already discharged from the hospital.
4. Per contra the learned HCGP made the submission that the present petitioner is a rowdy sheeter having criminal antecedents. Therefore, if he is released on bail there is every likelihood, that he may again involve in committing in such offences which is danger to the society of large and in this connection he has also produced the document that is the extract of the rowdy sheeter register. Hence, he submitted to reject the petition.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application, so also the document produced by the learned HCGP. It is no doubt true that there is case and counter case and even the accused side also filed the complaint against the :4: complainant of this case and also the others and on both sides there is alleged offence under Section 307 of the IPC. It is true that the said offence is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. But looking to the antecedents of the present petitioner and the document produced by the learned HCGP that he is rowdy sheeter. He is in the habit of picking up a quarrel with the people creating the fear in the minds of the public and having a criminal antecedents. Looking to this document the learned HCGP justified in making his submission that if he is released on bail the possibility of again he involving in committing such offences cannot be completely ruled out. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner, accordingly the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-