Karnataka High Court
Ramappa S/O Nagappa Bhumaller vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2020
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22 N D DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100996 OF 2020
BETWEEN
RAMAPPA S/O NAGAPPA BHUMALLER
URF BANAKAR, AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BULLAPUR,
TQ: RATTIHALLI, DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VISHWANATH S BICHAGATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH RATTIHALLI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL ON
SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEMS FIT IN RATTIHALLI
POLICE STATION CRIME NO.55/2020 THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 323, 307, 302, 504
AND 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.55/2020 of Rattihalli Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 307, 302, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the wife of the deceased has filed complaint stating that she is residing along with her brother-in-law and his wife and her family property is situated at Ballapur village measuring 4 acres 24 guntas which stands in the name of her husband and his brother that are adjacent to the property belonging to petitioner's family and with regard to the boundary there exist a frequent disputes and clashes between the families. It is further alleged that on 23.05.2020 when she engaged herself in agricultural activities along with her deceased husband, her children and wife of her in-law around 1.45 p.m. all the accused persons engaged themselves in pouring fertilizers to their Areca nuts trees grown upon 3 their agricultural land. The complainant further alleged that accused No.1 and 2 had removed the stone which was kept for demarcating the boundaries between the properties belonging to petitioners and the complainant's family, the deceased victim (complainant's husband) having noticed the same questioned the accused persons as to why they have removed the stone and there was a quarrel between them and accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 have attacked the deceased and scolded him in filthy language and kicked, beaten and assaulted the deceased victim. At the end accused No.2 held the chemical fertilizer in his hand and by coercion with the intention of killing him administered the same to the victim at his mouth and spilled the same over his body. Thereafter, the accused persons left the scene of offence by giving life threat. The said complaint was registered in Crime No.55/2020 of Rattihalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 307, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The petitioner came to bearrested on 26.05.2020. The petitioner-accused No.1 has filed bail application 4 before II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri sitting at Ranebennur in Crl.Misc.No.74/2020 and the same came to be rejected by order dated 22.06.2020. Hence, the petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking bail. During the pendency of this present petition, charge sheet has been filed and counsel for the petitioner has produced the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The charge sheet is filed only against the accused No.1-Ramappa, accused No.2-Kiran and accused No.3-Rekha and charge sheet is not filed against other accused who are named in the FIR. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that due to repeated disputes alleged by the accused, the deceased fed up with the same has committed suicide and accused have abetted the said suicide.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and learned HCGP for respondent-State. Perused the FIR and the complaint.
5
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 that there is a boundary dispute between the petitioner and the deceased and merely because of boundary dispute and quarrels in that regard has not abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is his further submission that complainant who is the wife of the deceased who has given complaint falsely alleging that accused No.2 administered the poison to the deceased. The said aspect itself goes to show that accused have been falsely implicated in the case. Subsequently, the said complainant has given statement before the Police that deceased consumed poison due to the abetment by the accused. It is his further submission that the complainant's version is contrary. It is his submission that that there is no harassment by the accused and not abetted the deceased to commit suicide. With this he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that CW-14 is the eye witness who has seen fight and quarrel between 6 the accused and deceased regarding boundary dispute between them. It is her further submission that cutting of the trees and removing boundary and quarreling is the main abatement for committing suicide by the deceased. It is her further submission that charge sheet materials shows the prima facie case for the offences leveled against the petitioner-accused No.1. It is her further submitted that if the petitioner-accused No.1 is granted with bail, he will tamper the prosecution witnesses. With this she prays to reject the bail petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records. As per the charge sheet there is a boundary dispute between accused and the deceased and there are frequent quarrels in that regard. It is alleged that the accused cut the tree and removed the boundary stone. Whether the said act of the accused amounts to abetment to commit the suicide is a matter of trial. 7
7. It is well settled that matters to be considered in an application for bail are:
"(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses, may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused."
8. In a decision reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 in the case of DATARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARA PRADESH AND ANOTHER, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: 8
"A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society."
9. In the present case the investigation is completed. Charge sheet filed. No grounds have been made out by the prosecution to show that custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused No.1 is necessary. The petitioner- accused No.1 is residing in the address shown in the cause title is not disputed. The main objection of the 9 prosecution is that in the event of grant of bail, the petitioner-accused No.1 is likely to cause threat to the complainant and prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing some stringent conditions.
10. In the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that there are valid grounds for grant of bail subject to conditions. Hence, I pass the following.
ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The petitioner-accused No.1 shall be released on bail in Crime No.55/2020 of Rattihalli Police Station, subject to the following conditions.
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
In view of the Covid-2019 petitioner is permitted to furnish surety within two months. If circumstances arise, jurisdictional court is 10 permitted to extend the time for furnishing surety.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge or tamper prosecution witnesses in any manner.
iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case registered against him.
Sd/-
JUDGE Hm b