Karnataka High Court
Shetteppa Devanand, vs The State Of Karnataka, on 20 April, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100450/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SHETTEPPA DEVANAND,
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVANT,
R/O: BALIGAR PLOT,
OPPOSITE TO APSARA DHABA,
SAVANUR ROAD,
LAXMESHWAR,
DISTRICT: GADAG.
2. ASHOK S/O SANNAHANAMAPPA PUJAR,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: GOVERNMENT SERVANT,
R/O: POLICE QUARTERS,
LAXMESHWAR,
DISTRICT: GADAG.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ARAVIND D KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH LAXMESHWAR POLICE STATION,
(NOW CID POLICE ARE
INVESTIGATING THE CASE)
REP. BY SPP,
:2:
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL
TO THE PETITIONERS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
POLICE TO RELEASE THEM ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO. 19 OF 2017 OF
LAXMESHWAR POLICE STATION, LAXMESHWAR,
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 323, 324, 302, 504 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, HAVING
BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON
06.04.2017, 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 323, 324, 302, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.19/2017.
:3:
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that one Mr.Fakkiresh Harijan has filed a complaint alleging that he is a cleaner of the lorry; himself and lorry driver Shivappa Dundappa Bhadrapur @ Goni were proceeding to Hubballi carrying sand load on 05.02.2017. Petitioners chased them and stopped their lorry near Pashupatihal at about 4.00a.m., assaulted the Driver Shivappa with their hands, stick, kicked him and threw into the thorn bush thereby caused injuries to him. At that time, owner of the lorry came and requested the petitioners to release the vehicle; Petitioner No.1 asked the owner to give Rs.70,000/- but at the request of the Owner, petitioner No.1 agreed for Rs.40,000/-. It is also alleged that the owner of the lorry gave Rs.12,000/- and stated that the remaining amount will be given on the next day and got released the vehicle. The lorry owner instructed the complainant to drop the Driver to his house at Battur Village and complainant dropped the Driver at about :4: 5.00a.m. Shivappa i.e., the Driver of the lorry, collapsed at his house and his sister gave him water and took him to private hospital at Battur and at the advice of the Doctor, shifted him to Laxmeshwar Hospital by his parents. It is also alleged in the complaint that someone called the complainant and informed him that Shivappa has died. At about 10.00a.m. complainant came to Laxmeshwar and saw that Shivappa's dead body kept infront of Laxmeshwar Police Station and thousands of persons had gathered there. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent- State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that looking to the prosecution material there :5: is no prima-facie case made out by the prosecution that it is the petitioners, who have assaulted the deceased and that is the reason for the death of the deceased. He has further submitted that after the said incident, enquiry was initiated against the petitioners in the department. The enquiry report shows that the Driver and the Cleaner have ran away even before PSI could reach the Tractor, which stopped near Pashupatihal. He has also submitted that even as per the opinion of the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, the injury on the scalp of the deceased is postmortem injury. Even the Doctor has opined that the injuries are not sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death of the deceased. Hence, death is not because of the alleged assault and it is because of the heart-attack. He has also submitted that even perusing the entire prosecution materials, there is no involvement of the petitioners in committing the said offence. He has also submitted that petitioners are :6: ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court and they are ready to cooperate with the Investigation agency in the further investigation of the matter. Hence, submitted that petitioners may be admitted to anticipatory bail by imposing reasonable conditions.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that the allegations in the complaint clearly shows that it is the petitioners-Police, who have assaulted the deceased as well as the complainant, and because of the said assault made by the petitioners, the deceased, when taken on the motorcycle by the complainant to the house, collapsed in the house and subsequently, the deceased expired. Hence, complainant is the eye- witness to the incident and contended that in his presence the deceased was assaulted by the Police. Even it is stated in the complaint that the complainant was also assaulted by the Police. Hence, this material :7: prima-facie shows the involvement of the petitioners in committing the alleged offence. He has further submitted that the investigation is still going on and the matter is referred to CID. Hence, submitted that petitioners are not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, the order dated 25.02.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Gadag, rejecting the bail application seeking anticipatory bail, so also, the letter dated 05.02.2017 addressed by the Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, Belagavi, to The Director General & Inspector General of Police, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru, requesting for handing over the case in Crime No.19/2017 u/s 323, 324, 302, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC, Laxmeshwar Police Station, Gadag District, to CID for further investigation.
:8:
7. I have also perused the original file containing investigation materials produced by the Investigating Officer as per the direction of this Court.
8. I have also perused the report from the IGP, Northern Range, Belagavi, Camp at Laxmeshwar, Gadag District, dated 05.02.2017, wherein it is stated at Sl.Nos.4 and 8 as under:
"4. The crowd which gathered outside the police station consisted majorly of truck drivers and owners who had to face legal action due to recent police crackdown on illegal sand transportation. This has resulted in many miscreants taking advantage of the situation.
8. Enquiry so far reveals that the driver and the cleaner have ran away even before the PSI could reach the truck which was stopped near Pashupathihal village. Later he called the owner to the spot and after negotiation, the PSI had left the vehicle without booking a case.":9:
9. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint, complainant is the Cleaner, who accompanied the deceased in the said Truck and he clearly stated in the complaint that the Police stopped their lorry and assaulted him and Shivappa and caused injuries. It is also stated in the complaint that at that time, the owner of the truck by name Halappa also came to the spot on his two wheeler vehicle along with him one Muslim boy i.e., Fakkirish of Haralapur also came and it is mentioned that even the PSI i.e., the petitioner herein, assaulted Halappa, the owner of the Truck and thereafter, Halappa asked the complainant and the deceased to go on his two wheeler vehicle to the house of the deceased Shivappa and told that he will take care of the lorry. So the complaint averments shows that apart from the complainant, even Halappa, the owner of the lorry, and Fakkirish of Haralpur, a Muslim boy, were also the eye-witness to the incident. : 10 :
10. During the course of arguments it is submitted by both sides that the statement of Halappa and said Muslim boy are not yet recorded by the CID Police as both of them are absconding and they are not yet traced. Therefore, these two eye-witnesses are yet to be traced by the CID Police and their statements are to be recorded by the Investigation Officer.
11. So far as the medical aspect is concerned, it is no doubt true, the provisional opinion has been given by the Doctor, wherein it is stated that out of injury Nos.1 to 15 on the dead body, injury No.1 on the back side of the head is a post-mortem injury and injury Nos.2 to 15 are not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person. However, final opinion regarding the cause of death is still awaited. Apart from that, the investigation, which was taken out by the Laxmeshwar Police Station and then handed over to CID Police, is still in progress and it is not yet : 11 : concluded. Under these circumstances, at this stage, it is not proper for this Court to allow the petition and to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. For consideration of the petition, the statement of other two eye-witnesses, the final medical opinion regarding the cause of death are also necessary.
12. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court after completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet.
All contentions of the petitioners/accused are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR