Karnataka High Court
Revanasiddappa vs The State And Anr on 15 June, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200101/2022
BETWEEN:
REVANASIDDAPPA
S/O SHIVARAJ KANNADGI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O HEROOR (K),
TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI
NEAR MOTHER
TERESSA HOSPITAL,
HUMANABAD ROAD,
BIDAR-585401.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI: M.S.ASTAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE THROUGH
DHANNURA P.S. DIST. BIDAR
(REPRESENTING BY LEARNED
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
KALABURAGI-585105)
2
2. SATISH S/O SHRIMANT HOSAMANI,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: GOUNDI WORK,
R/O KATAMMA DEVARHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ. CHITTAPUR
NOW AT H.NO.LIG-21,
HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
SEDAM ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585103.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1;
BY SRI. KHALEEPH M. BURMA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14A(2) OF THE SC/ST P.A. ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.05.2022 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.221/2022 REJECTING THE BAIL PETITION
FILED BY THE APPELLANT U/SEC.439 OF CR.P.C. AND BE
PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL
IN CRIME NO.114/2021 OF DHANNURA P.S. DIST. BIDAR,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS
JUDGE BIDAR IN SPL. CASE SC/ST NO.03/2022, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.143, 147, 302, 201 R/W
149 OF I.P.C. & SEC.3(1)(R), 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST P.A. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
The appellant-accused No.1 is before this Court praying to allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 07.05.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.221/2022 rejecting the bail petition filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and be pleased to enlarge the appellant on bail in Crime No.114/2021 of Dhannura Police Station, Bidar, pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in Spl.Case SC/ST No.03/2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Sateesh.
2. Heard Sri. M.S.Astagi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Gururaj V Hasilkar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and 4 Sri. Khaleeph.M.Burma, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is arrayed as accused No.1 and he has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. The appellant was apprehended on 06.10.2021 and since then, he is in judicial custody. It is stated that the alleged incident took place in the temple, where the deceased under the influence of alcohol, was repeatedly teasing and insulting the present appellant by calling his name as 'Siddya'. Therefore, the appellant fisted him on his cheek, stomach and chest. No weapon was used and there was no mens rea to cause the death of the deceased. No external injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased and the death was due to tura corneal hemorrhage. Therefore, Section 302 of IPC was not at all attracted to the facts of the case. Even as per the case made out by the prosecution, if at all it would fall into Section 304(ii) of IPC. 5 The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is already filed. Hence, the detention of the appellant in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the appeal and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the appeal submitted that serious allegations are made against the appellant-accused No.1 for having committed the offences. He is the main accused, who under the influence of alcohol, had assaulted the deceased with fist repeatedly. As a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. The post mortem report of the deceased discloses that he sustained two external injuries and cause of death was due to blunt force injury over both lungs associated with tura corneal hemorrhage. Therefore, it is clear case of causing murder by the appellant. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence, 6 which is punishable either with death or imprisonment for life, the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
6. The allegations made against the appellant-
accused No.1 are of serious nature. It is alleged that he fisted the deceased-Kiran on his cheek, stomach as well as chest. It is pertinent to note that both deceased as well as appellant were intoxicated. As per the post mortem report of the deceased, which is produced for perusal of the Court, the cause of death was due to blunt force injury 7 over both lungs associated with tura corneal hemorrhage. It is stated that CW.12-Pandit said to be an eye-witness to the alleged incident and he also states that the deceased was teasing and harassing the appellant by referring his name and therefore, the appellant fisted on his cheek, stomach and chest. The post mortem report also discloses that there are only two abrasions over face and right chest. All these materials discloses that there are prima- facie materials against the appellant for having committed the offence. However, it is pertinent to note that the appellant was not armed with any weapon nor it was a pre-planned murder. Admittedly, the investigation is already completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to detain the appellant in custody, which would amount to pre-trial punishment. Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the appellant 8 may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.
7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed.
The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.114/2021 of Dhannura Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
a). The appellant shall not commit similar offences.
b). The appellant shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The appellant shall appear before the Court as and when required.9
If in case, the appellant violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the appellant, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the appellant and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMJ