Karnataka High Court
Sri.Bhasha Mohideen S/O Syhad Ali vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100630 of 2020
Between:
1. Shri Basha Mohideen S/o.Syhad Ali,
Age 35 years, Occ: Mechanic,
R/o.: Near Sardar Mazid, Chapparadalli,
Hosapete, Dist.: Ballari.
2. Shoukat Ali S/o.Syhad Ali,
Age 28 years, Occ: Mechanic,
R/o.: Near Sardar Mazid, Chapparadalli,
Hosapete, Dist.: Ballari.
3. Amanulla S/o.Syhad Ali,
Age 25 years, Occ: Mechanic,
R/o.: Near Sardar Mazid, Chapparadalli,
Hosapete, Dist.: Ballari.
... Petitioners
(By Shri M.L.Vanti for Shri S.H.Mittalkod, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka,
PSI, Extension Police Station,
Hosapete, Dist.: Ballari,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, Dharwad.
... Respondent
(By Miss Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
seeking to allow the petition directing the respondent to release
the petitioners-accused nos.1 to 3 on bail in the event of their
:2:
arrest in Extension Police Station, Hosapete Crime No.01/2020
pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM Court,
Hosapete, registered for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 504, 506 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Extension Police Station, Hosapete, Crime No.01 of 2020 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM Court, Hosapete for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.01.2020, the above case was registered against the petitioners on the basis of the complaint filed by one Akram Bhasha, wherein it is alleged that on 11.01.2020 at about 10:30 a.m. a Municipality UGD vehicle had come near the house of the complainant to clean the drainage. The accused - petitioners had parked their two :3: wheelers, which was obstructing passing of Municipality vehicle. Hence, the complainant's father N.Shaik Buran Sab requested the petitioners to park their two wheeler by the side of the road to enable the Municipality vehicle to pass through towards the complainant's house.
3. At that time, the petitioner No.1 had initially abused the complainant's father by using filthy language and thereafter assaulted him on his chest, as a result of which the complainant's father fell down. Thereafter, all the petitioners assaulted the complainant's father by kicking him on his abdomen and on his back. At that point of time, the complainant and the neighbors came to rescue of the complainant's father. Despite which the petitioners did not stop the assault, petitioner No.2 slapped on the right cheek and also assaulted on the chest of the father of the complainant as also threatened with dire consequences.
:4:
4. The complainant's father complained of severe chest pain was taken to the hospital for treatment, wherein he succumbed to an heart attack.
5. Shri M.L.Vanti on behalf of Shri S.H.Mittalkot, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the death of the complainant's father as per post-mortem report is due to an heart attack and not on account of the alleged assault committed by the petitioners. He therefore submits that Section 302 of IPC is not attracted and when the said provision is not attracted, the necessary charges against the petitioners are of minor crimes. Therefore, they ought to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. He further submits that the incident having occurred on the spur of the moment, there was no intention or premeditated plan for the particular incident to occur and therefore, on this ground also the offence cannot be said to be one under Section 302 of IPC.
:5:
6. Per contra, Miss. Seema Shiva Naik learned HCGP submits that the cause of death though being heart attack, the heart attack was due to assault committed by the petitioners on the chest and back of the deceased. The deceased being aged about 64 years, the petitioner ought to have known the consequences of the petitioners in unison having assaulted the said old man on his chest and back. Therefore, the question of petitioners now claiming that heart attack is a natural occurrence for 64 years old man cannot be a defence or consideration for the purpose of considering the present application for anticipatory bail.
7. As regards the further contention of the learned counsel Shri M.L.Vanti that the incident occurred at the spur of moment, she submits that despite the complainant and the neighbors coming to the rescue of the deceased, the petitioners continued to assault and also threatened the deceased with dire :6: consequence. Therefore, even this ground cannot be considered at this stage.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the papers.
9. On the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the papers, I am of the considered opinion that at present the petitioners are not entitled for being enlarged on anticipatory bail, they are required for custodial interrogation since investigation is still under progress. Hence, the petition as filed is rejected with liberty to move for regular bail once the charge sheet is filed.
10. The observation made above is only for the purpose of consideration of the application for anticipatory bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the :7: trial. The trial Court shall dispose of the matter on merits without being influenced by this order.
SD/-
JUDGE Vnp*