Sri. Ramesh S/O Mayappa Byakod vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2017

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Ramesh S/O Mayappa Byakod vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2017

Bench: R.B Budihal

                         :1:



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH.

           DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2017.

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101536 OF 2017.


BETWEEN:

SRI. RAMESH S/O MAYAPPA BYAKOD
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KANKANWADI, TAL: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)


AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI,
RAIBAG POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. S.P.P.,
SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARAWD.
                                           ... RESPONDENT

(SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR-HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO ENLARGE THEM
ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN
RAIBAG POLICE STATION CRIME NO.58 OF 2017 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 OF IPC.
                            :2:



      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

This petition is filed by petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking his release on bail of the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No.58/2017.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case, that deceased is the father of the present petitioner. The deceased was addicted to drinking alcohol. Everyday he use to consume the liquor and in that connection he use to ask his son the petitioner herein to pay amount for consuming the alcohol. So even on the date of the alleged incident also, the deceased was insisting the petitioner herein to pay the amount for consuming the alcohol. For which the petitioner advised the deceased not to continue the habit of drinking and to stop it. For that the deceased was telling to the petitioner herein that by not paying the :3: amount to consume the liquor and he has made it public before the village people and he will not leave the petitioner herein. When there were exchange of such words and the quarrel continue. The petitioner herein took the stick which was lying there in front of the house and assaulted on the head of the deceased and thereby caused the death of the deceased. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered for the alleged offence.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. Counsel made the submission that looking to the allegations made in the complaint itself, it goes to show that it is because of the exchange of words in between the father and the present petitioner and because of the grave and sudden provocation, the present petitioner alleged to have assaulted the deceased with the stick. Learned counsel also made the submission that it is :4: also in exercise of the right of private defence and as per Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not the offence at all. Hence, on these grounds and as the investigation completed and charge sheet is filed. He submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions he may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra the learned HCGP made the submission that there are eye-witnesses to the incident, that the petitioner took the stick and assaulted the deceased father. Hence, he submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the other materials that is statement of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during investigation. Looking to the complaint allegations one thing is clear that the act committed by the present petitioner is not premeditated, because it is stated in the complaint itself that firstly the quarrel was going on between the father and the son by exchange of words only :5: and when the father continued to abuse the petitioner insisting him to give the money, then at that time the present petitioner took the stick which was lying at the said place. So it goes to show that the petitioner was unarmed when the incident started and because of the pressure made by the deceased himself insisting the present petitioner to give the money otherwise he will not leave him, the petitioner took the said stick, which was lying there, and assaulted. Looking to these factual aspects of the matter it prima facie goes to show, that at the most the offence may fall under Section 304 part II and not under Section 302 of the IPC. The offence if considered as 304 part II which is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Investigation of the case is also completed and charge sheet is filed. Petitioner has under

taken that he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner can be admitted to regular bail.

:6:

7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner-

accused is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.58/2017 registered by the respondent Police for the above said offences, subject to following conditions:

i. Petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.

Sd/-

JUDGE RHR/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court