Karnataka High Court
Narayanagowda @ S Narayan vs State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2022
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND
CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINALPETITION NO.10971 OF 2022
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10983 OF 2022
IN CRL.P.NO. 10971/2022
BETWEEN:
1. NARAYANAGOWDA @ S. NARAYAN
S/O. LATE. C. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT DODDAGATTIGANABBE
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL
BENGALURU-562 114
2. DILIP .G S/O GOPALAKRISHNA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
by NAYANA S
R/AT DODDAGATTIGANABBE
Location: High HOSAKOTE TALUK
Court of
Karnataka BENGALURU RURAL
BENGALURU-562 114
3. BHARATH .V S/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.37, DODDAGATTIGANABBE
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL
BENGALURU-562 114
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. DESHPANDE AMIT ANAND, ADVOCATE)
-2-
CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND
CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THIRUMALASHETTYHALLY POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
THIS PETITION FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PETITIONER TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.111/2022 OF
THIRMALASHETTAHALLI POLICE STATION, NOW WITH
VISHWANATHAPURA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.
504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 327, 307 OF IPC AND SEC.25
AND 27 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT.
*************
IN CRL.P.NO. 10983/2022
BETWEEN:
1. K. RAJESH S/O M. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OCC: FARMER
R/AT DODDAGATTIGANABBE
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL
BENGALURU-562 114
2. K. SUNIL S/O M. KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
OCC FARMER
R/AT DODDAGATTIGANABBE
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
-3-
CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND
CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022
BENGALURU RURAL
BENGALURU-562 114
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. DESHPANDE AMIT ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THIRUMALASHETTYHALLY POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP,
SRI. SANDEEP C.T., ADVOCATE FOR DE-FACTO
COMPLAINANT)
THIS PETITION FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PETITIONER TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.111/2022 OF
THIRMALASHETTAHALLI P.S., BANGALORE DISTRICT FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 327,
307 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 25,26 & 27 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND
CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022
ORDER
The Criminal Petition No.10983/2022 is filed by Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and Criminal Petition No.10971/2022 is filed by Accused Nos.3 to 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging them on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.111/2022 of Thirumalashettihalli Police Station, Bengaluru District, now with Vishwanathapura Police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 327, 307, 143, 147, 148, 504, 506 read with section 149 of IPC and Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Hosakote, Bengaluru Rural.
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that, the complainant is the resident of Kodihalli in Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District and he was possessing land in Doddagattiganabbe Village near Suguna Office. According to the prosecution, on 22.07.2022 at about 2.00 p.m., the present petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5 along with three more -5- CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022 persons came on four motor bikes and started abusing the complainant in vulgar language and asked him to stop the work and then the complainant refused to stop the work on the ground that the land belongs to them. Suddenly petitioner No.1/Accused No.1- K.Rajesh has assaulted the complainant by a deadly weapon on the head. As a result, he collapsed there itself. It is also alleged that, when Chethan tried to intervene, Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2- K.Sunil showed him the dragger and thereby Chethan ran away under fear. Later on, by the said dragger Accused No.2-Sunil attempted to assault on the neck of the complainant and then Accused No.3-Narayanagowda, who was also possessing the dragger, has also tried to assault the driver (Naveen) of the complainant and at that time, the driver fired two rounds in air from his licenced gun in his self-defence. It is further alleged that in spite of that, Dilip, Babu and others attacked the complainant and then Naveen, the driver of complainant has fired once on the surface and later Narayanagowda, Dilip and Bharath have -6- CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022 snatched the licenced gun belonging to the complainant and then Dilip and Bharath held the complainant and abetted Narayanagowda to shoot him. Then Narayanagowda fired two to three times towards the complainant, but he escaped. It is the further case of the prosecution that, a boy working in the field was recording the entire incident in his mobile and on noticing he same, Dilip by showing dragger to him, snatched that mobile and damaged it . It is the further case of prosecution that, thereafter the petitioners threw the guns there at the spot and fled. In this regard, the complainant has lodged a complaint and on the basis of the complaint, the crime came to be registered.
3. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5, apprehending their arrest have approached the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge has rejected their bail petition. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
-7-
CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 and the learned HCGP for the Respondent-State. Perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2/complainant has also advanced his arguments.
6. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, the allegations of the prosecution disclose that the petitioners along with other three persons came on four motor bikes and objected the complainant in carrying the work in his land and when the complainant refused to stop the work, the said incident has occurred.
7. On the contrary, it is also evident that the wife of Accused No.2-K. Sunil has also lodged a counter complaint against the complainant and others in Crime No.112/2022, for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 120(B), 427, 147, 148 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act.
-8-
CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022
8. The allegations and counter allegations disclose that, in both cases the incident has taken place in same place, at same time and on the same day and as such, it is evident that they are case and counter cases.
9. The records further disclose that the complainant-P.Janardhan and his driver-Naveen were possessing the licenced guns. The records in counter Crime No.112/2022 disclose that both the guns were produced by them in the said case, wherein the complainant is arraigned as accused No.1 and the guns were recovered at his instance and further, they were granted anticipatory bail in counter Crime No.112/2022. The guns belong to the complainant-P. Janardhan and his driver-Naveen. The allegations further disclose that, Naveen, the driver of the complainant has fired two rounds in air and third time he fired on surface. If he is required to fire in his self-defence, he would have fired it in air, but not on surface, as there is every possibility of that gun -9- CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022 shot being re-directed and causing injury to third person including the complainant.
10. Apart from that, the records also disclose that the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 have also filed a petition before this Court in Criminal Petition No.7427/2022 (Rajesh and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint, which was disposed of on 29.10.2022. In the said case, this Court vide order dated 08.08.2022 has directed the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5 co-operate with the Investigating Officer and also observed that, the Investigating Officer in the garb of investigation, shall not take any coercive steps in the matter till the learned HCGP produces documents or investigation papers. The said order was passed on 8th August 2022 and today is 7th December, 2022. Even till today, the prosecution has not made any allegations that the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5 have not co-operated with the Investigation Agency. It is also submitted that,
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022 subsequently the said petition filed for quashing under section 482 of came to be dismissed on the ground that there are case and counter cases, with a direction to redress the remedy during trial itself. The records also disclose that the complainant has suffered only simple injuries. Further, the complainant-P. Janardhan and his driver-Naveen were possessing guns and if they were possessing the guns, it is hard to accept the fact that in spite of firing in the air, petitioners and others rushed towards them ignoring that the persons on other side were possessing guns. The records further disclose that the petitioners were only possessing draggers. The learned HCGP would contend that the dragger is required to be treated as an weapon under Arms Act and it is to be treated as a deadly weapon. However, except dragger, no other weapon is referred in the complaint in present case. In the counter case the petitioners were already granted bail. The allegations are that the petitioners have snatched the gun from the complainant and fired on him.
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022 But, admittedly the complainant has not suffered any gun- shot injuries. Though the learned HCGP would contend that the entire incident was recorded in CC-TV, but CC-TV footages were not produced before the Court. Except bald assertions regarding availability of CC-TV footages, no clippings were made available. It is submitted that, the guns were recovered, but the draggers were not recovered. That can be countered by imposing certain conditions for recovery.
11. Admittedly, the petitioners are alleging that their compound wall was demolished by the complainant party and the complainant party asserting that the petitioners have trespassed into their land and assaulted them. However, the records disclose that there are case and counter case and there was a free-fight between the parties and only during the course of trial, it is necessary to consider as to who is the aggressor.
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision reported in (2003) 8 SCC 77 [Bharat Chaudhary and Another] and invited the attention to Para No.7 of the said judgment regarding cardinal principles for granting bail. The object of the provisions/principles is to prevent undue harassment of the accused persons by pre-trial arrest and detention. He has further placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 372 [Bhagirathsinh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat] and invited the attention of the Court to Para No.5, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the importance of granting anticipatory bail and the grounds for granting anticipatory bail. Admittedly, in the instant case, both the parties had a free-fight in respect of the land dispute.
13. Learned counsel for complainant has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 224 [Lakshman Prasad Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh] and invited the
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022 attention of the Court to the observations made in Para Nos. 17 & 18 of the said judgment. But, it is the fact that, in the said case, the injured was still hospitalised and under such circumstances, the Apex Court has refused to interfere. But, in the instant case, admittedly the complainant and other witnesses have suffered only simple injuries and in fact they were carrying the guns.
14. Admittedly complainant and others are enjoying anticipatory bail in counter case. Hence, without ascertaining as to who is aggressor during trial, it is not proper to reject petitions of petitioners.
15. Looking to the above facts and circumstances and considering the rival contentions and dispute between the parties, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5 on anticipatory bail. However, other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted-out by imposing certain conditions. Regarding recovery of draggers, a condition can be
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022 imposed on the petitioners to co-operate with the Investigating Agency and the Investigating Officer can recover the same. But, the recovery of weapons does come in the way of granting anticipatory bail. As such, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER I. The Criminal Petition Nos.10971/2022 and 10983/2022 are allowed.
II. The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 are directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.111/2022 of Thirumalashettihalli Police Station, Bengaluru District, now with Vishwanathapura Police, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 327, 307, 143, 147, 148, 504, 506 read with section 149 of IPC and Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act on each of them executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:
- 15 -
CRL.P No. 10971 OF 2022 AND CRL.P No. 10983 OF 2022
(i) Petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in the event of their surrender, Investigating Officer/SHO shall release them on bail as directed.
(ii) They shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) They shall not indulge in any similar offences.
(iv) They shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for during course of investigation.
(v) They shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer/SHO on 1st and 15th of every month between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till the final report is submitted.
(vi) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
(vii) The Investigating Officer is at liberty to interrogate the petitioners if required for recovery purpose, with the prior permission of the concerned Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67