Karnataka High Court
Kappanna S/O Shankrappa Muppineni vs The State on 4 July, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
CRL.P.No.101040/2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101040/2018
BETWEEN:
KAPPANNA S/O. SHANKRAPPA MUPPINENNI,
AGE 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. HIREVADDATTI, TQ. MUNDARAGI,
DIST. GADAG.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI H.N.GULARADDI, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH MUNDARAGI POLICE
REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN
MUNDARAGI P.S.CRIME NO.79/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307, 354(b) OF IPC IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONER CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.P.No.101040/2018
:2:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth for brevity referred to as "Cr.P.C."), seeking regular bail in Mundaragi Police Station Crime No.79/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 354(b) of Indian Penal Code (henceforth for brevity referred to as "IPC")
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant Shekappa lodged a complaint, the summary of which is that on 23.03.2018 at about 8.00 p.m., while the son of the complainant by name Sharanappa was standing in front of their tea shop on the road side, the petitioner herein dashed to him with his motorcycle which he was riding. Due to the said act, Sharanappa fell down and sustained injuries. The complaint was registered in the respondent Police Station in Crime No.79/2018 against the present petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 & 338 of IPC and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. After completing the CRL.P.No.101040/2018 :3: investigation, the respondent police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307 & 354(b) of IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument contended that even according to the complainant who claims himself to be an eyewitness, the alleged incident was purely an accident. As such, originally the complaint was filed only for the offences mentioned in the FIR. However, for the reasons best known to the investigating officer a false charge sheet has been filed attracting the offence punishable under Sections 307 & 354(b) of IPC.
4. The learned HCGP who has filed objection on behalf of the respondent police submitted in his argument that even though the complaint originally was for a lesser offence under Motor Vehicles Act, however, the further statement of the complainant-injured and the other charge sheet witnesses have clearly proved that the CRL.P.No.101040/2018 :4: accused was attempting to molest the daughter-in-law of the complainant and since the same was objected to by her husband and the complainant, the alleged act of attempting to murder has been committed by the accused intentionally.
5. A reading of the materials placed before this Court at this stage and prima facie goes to show that the complainant claims to be the father of injured Sharanappa. He further claims that he was an eyewitness to the incident. In the complaint lodged by him in the case, he has nowhere whispered about the alleged act of molestation of his daughter-in-law by the accused. On the contrary, he has only spoken about the alleged rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the present petitioner/accused. This creates a doubt at this stage on the aspect that had there been any alleged attempt of molestation of his daughter-in-law by the accused and for the said reason if the accused has committed the alleged act of dashing the son of the complainant with his CRL.P.No.101040/2018 :5: motorcycle, then the complainant would have necessarily stated the said incident of alleged molestation in his complaint at the first instance. Therefore, the further statement said to have been given by the complainant and also the statement of the injured and his wife Manjula may have to be considered with some deeper scrutiny at the time of trial of the matter. As such, suffice it to say that in the circumstance of the case, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. However the apprehension of the prosecution that the accused may flee from justice can be checked by imposing reasonable conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail in Cr.No.79/2018 by the respondent - Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 307 & 354 (b) of IPC. However, subject to condition that the petitioner/accused shall execute a personal CRL.P.No.101040/2018 :6: bond for a sum of `40,000/-(Rupees Forty thousand only) with two sureties in the equal sum to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court.
(iii) The accused shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(iv) The accused shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing.
Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/-