Karnataka High Court
Sri A Nanjappa vs State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2013
Author: H.S.Kempanna
Bench: H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.KEMPANNA
CRL.P.No.5367 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. A. NANJAPPA,
S/O LATE ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2. DEVARAJU,
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/A MAVALLIPURA VILLAGE,
HESARAGATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 089
... PETITIONERS
(By SRI RAJANNA.C., ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
RAJANKUNTE POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)
***
2
THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.438 PRAYING
TO ENLARGE THE PETRS. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.91/13 OF RAJANUKUNTE
P.S., BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE, FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 307 R/W 149
OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.91/2013 on the file of Rajankunte police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 307 r/w 149 of IPC are before this Court seeking for grant of anticipatory bail.
2. The respondent-police on the complaint of one K.M.Purushotham, s/o late Muniramaiah, resident of Armuthhalli village have registered the above case against the petitioners and others and have taken up investigation. It is alleged on 18.5.2013 when the complainant was putting up a shed in his ancestral land measuring 2 acres 15 guntas situated in Sy.No.112 of Mavallipura village at about 6.30 p.m. these petitioners 3 along with others came to the said place having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like clubs, iron rod and claiming that the complainant has no right to put up the shed in the land in question, picked up quarrel, assaulted him with weapons with which they were armed. On account of the assault made the complainant sustained severe injuries and on his complaint the above case is registered and investigation is taken up.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits the overt act attributed to these petitioners is that the 1st petitioner assaulted the Complainant - K.M.Purushothama with iron rod on the right leg knee joint, 2nd petitioner assaulted him with hand near right side of the eye. He further submits on the very same day the accused were also assaulted by the complainant and his henchmen and in that connection petitioner No.3 who is accused No.6 has filed a complaint before the very same police upon which a case is registered in Crime NO.93/2013 for the offences under Section 3(i) 4 and (x) of SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 as they belong to SC/ST community. The said complaint of Accused No.6 was filed on 18.5.2013 much prior to the complaint filed by the complainant in this case but the police did not register the case on that day but they registered it on 19.5.2013 after correcting the date from 18th to 19th May 2013. He further submits that there is a civil dispute between the parties in respect of the place where the complainant and his fellowmen were putting up the shed. The case has been foisted against them as a counter blast to the case filed by Accused No.6. He further submits the other accused have been granted bail by this court in Crl. P. No.4960/2013 on 29.10.2013. The petitioners hail from a respectable family having deep roots in the society. Hence they be granted the relief as prayed for by them.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the application filed by the petitioners. 5
5. A perusal of the first information discloses that these petitioners along with three others, on the date, time and place of occurrence had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like clubs, iron rod and assaulted the complainant, one Sharat Kumar, his brother and another person Ravikumar. The overt act attributed to each of the petitioners is the 1st petitioner-accused No.1 assaulted the Complainant with iron rod on the right knee joint and 2nd petitioner assaulted him with hand near the right side of the eye. The copy of the first information filed by Accused No.6 discloses a case in Crime No.93/2013 has been registered against the complainant and his fellowmen for the offences under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act as these petitioners belong to SC/ST community. A perusal of the first information appended to the First Information Report discloses, though complaint has been filed, as submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, on 18.5.2013 it has been corrected 6 as 19.5.2013. That goes to show that accused No.6 had filed the complaint much earlier to the complaint filed by the first informant in this case. Further, the other co- accused have already been granted bail by this court. In view of the case and counter case pending against each other and taking into account the background in which the occurrence has taken place, in the circumstances I do not find any justifiable reason to decline the request of these petitioners. Accordingly I pass the following:-
ORDER Petition is allowed.
The petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No.91/2013 of the respondent-police, the said police are directed to release them on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the said police subject to the following conditions:- 7
1. The petitioners shall appear before the respondent-police on or before 20/12/2013 for the purpose of their arrest and release.
2. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
3. They shall make themselves available to the investigating agency as and when required for the purpose of investigation.
Sd/-
JUDGE VK