Karnataka High Court
Rakesh S/O Nagappa Terdal vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Crl.P. No.100851/2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100851/2018
BETWEEN:
1. RAKESH,
S/O NAGAPPA TERDAL,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O AKI-ALLUR,
TQ: HANGAL,
DT: HAVERI.
2. GANGADHAR,
S/O SURESH TERDAL,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O AKI-ALLUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DT: HAVERI.
3. RAHUL,
S/O NAGAPPA TERDAL,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O AKI-ALLUR, TQ: HANGAL,
DT: HAVERI.
4. KARTIK,
S/O SURESH TERDAL,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O AKI-ALLUR,
TQ: HANGAL,
DT: HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.M.SHIRALLI, ADVOCATE)
Crl.P. No.100851/2018
:2:
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HANGAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
--
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING FOR RELEASE OF THESE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 ON BAIL, IN
S.C.NO.4/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT HAVERI,
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148,
323, 324, 326, 504, 307, 302, 506 READ WITH 149 OF IPC IN
HANGAL P.S. CRIME NO.188/2016.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their enlargement on bail in S.C. No.4/2017 pending on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Haveri, in connection with Crime No.188/2016 registered with the respondent-police for the offences punishable under Crl.P. No.100851/2018 :3: Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, 307, 302, 506 read with 149 of IPC.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that on the night of 26.06.2016, at about 8.25 p.m., while Sri. Vijaykumar (C.W.6), Sri. Ramesh (C.W.7), Sri Shankrappa (C.W.7) and one Devaraj were returning to their home in their village, ten accused including the present accused/petitioners, with an intention to kill them and forming an unlawful assembly, assaulted these four persons with a knife, a sharp-edged instrument used by a cobbler (rampi), club and stones and injured them. Among them, said injured Devaraj succumbed to the injuries. As such, the police have filed charge-sheet against the accused for the alleged offences.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contentions taken up by the petitioners in their petition, has stated that there is no whisper in the complaint or any other material to show that there was Crl.P. No.100851/2018 :4: light at the time of the alleged incident, as such, the identification of the alleged culprits in the absence of the light leads to a suspicion. Regarding the description of the weapons said to have been used for causing injuries upon the injured Devaraj, there is a discrepancy. Further stating that accused Nos.5 to 10 have already been enlarged on the relief of anticipatory bail by this Court, learned counsel prays for allowing the petition.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State has filed his statement of objections. In his arguments, while reiterating the contentions taken up in his objections statement, the learned High Court Government Pleader also submitted that all the accused are known persons to the victims, as such, merely non-mentioning of the presence of light at the spot specifically, would not take away the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the previous enmity existing between the present accused/petitioners Crl.P. No.100851/2018 :5: and the victims with respect to Gutkha (chewing pan masala) has lead to the incident. He also submitted that there are eyewitnesses to the incident, as such, the present accused/petitioners are not entitled for release on bail.
5. A perusal of the prosecution papers, at this stage, would go to show that among the four injured victims, one victim by name Devaraj, is said to have succumbed to the injuries, as such, the police have incorporated Section 302 of IPC in the complaint. The other three alleged injured victims i.e., C.W.6, C.W.7 and C.W.8 have given their statements to the Investigating Officer accusing the accused of the alleged overt acts. The present accused/petitioners have been specifically named by the victim as the one who inflicted injuries upon them. C.W.6, C.W.7 and C.W.8 have specifically stated the role of each of the present accused/petitioners in the commission of the crime and Crl.P. No.100851/2018 :6: about infliction of injuries upon them. C.W.6 is shown to have specifically stated that accused no.1/petitioner no.1 assaulted him with a knife and caused a stab injury. Accused No.2/petitioner No.2 is said to have inflicted injury upon Devaraj who succumbed subsequently. C.W.7 has stated that accused No.3/petitioner No.3 assaulted him with a club and caused injuries. These victims also stated that present accused No.4/petitioner No.4 assaulted them with a stone. All these victims have made it clear that the accused have disclosed their intention of assault stating that because of previous enmity with respect to gutkha (pan masala) matter they are going to take the life of these people. Added to that, the prosecution has also projected C.W.9, C.W.10 and C.W11 as eyewitnesses to the incident. Thus, it can be said that the prosecution, during its investigation, has collected some material which, at this stage, raises finger as against the present petitioners.
Crl.P. No.100851/2018:7:
6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no mentioning of presence of the light at the place of incident. However, without going through the entire charge-sheet papers, it cannot be inferred that there was no light at the place of incident. More importantly, it is not in dispute that the accused and victims were known to each other even prior to the incident. According to prosecution, with regard to gutkha (pan masala) matter, there was enmity between the accused and the victims. In such background, when both the parties knew each other and the incident has taken place in public road in a village in front of the house of a local resident, it cannot be presumed that the identity of accused was not taken note of by the victims and other eyewitnesses.
7. Even though the present petitioners are said to be in judicial custody since long time, but the same would not be a criteria in the case like the one on the hand, to Crl.P. No.100851/2018 :8: enlarge them on the relief of bail. Considering the nature and gravity of the offences and more importantly, the injuries inflicted by each of the present accused/petitioners, I am of the view that the present accused/petitioners do not deserve the relief of bail. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms