Karnataka High Court
Kallappa Basappa Karadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2020
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8 t h DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100935/2020
c/w CRIMINAL PETITION No.100951/2020
IN CRL.P.N O.100935/ 2020
BETWEEN:
SANGAPPA S/ O BA SAPPA YEMMETTI
AGE: 46 YEARS , OCC: A GRICULTURE,
R/O: JAMMIHAL VI LLAGE,
TQ: KALAGHATAGI , DIST: D HARWAD .
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VASANT G. HOLEYANNAVAR, ADV OCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARANTAKA
REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD, T HROUGH PSI
KALAGHATAGI POLICE STATION ,
KALAGHATAGI .
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO RELEASE OF THE PETITIONERS /
ACCUSED 9 ON BAIL IN KALAGHTAGI POLICE STATION
CRIME NO.112/ 2019 I .E., FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER
SECTION 143, 147, 148, 448, 504, 506, 341, 307,
302, 324, 326, 120B, 201 R/W 149 OF I PC AND
2
SECTION 27 OF THE ARMS ACT 1959 WHICH IS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADD L. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS J UDGE, DHARWAD.
IN CRL.P.NO.100951/2020
BETWEEN:
1. KALLAPPA BASAPPA KARADI
AGE: 50 YEARS , OCC: A GRICULTURE,
2. MAHESH FAKEERA PPA KARADI
AGE: 26 YEARS , OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
3. MARUTI HALA PPA AKKI
AGE: 42 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
4. IRAYYA BASAYYA PUJAR
AGE: 20 YEARS , OCC: MASON ,
5. BASAYYA FAKIRAYYA PUJAR
AGE: 51 YEARS , OCC: A GRICULTURE,
6. SHEKHAPPA HANUMANTHAPPA J ODA LLI
AGE: 56 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
7. SHANKRAYYA MALLAYYA PUJA R @ YADWAD
AGE: 20 YEARS , OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
ALL ARE R/ O R/ O: JAMMINHAAL,
TQ: KALAGHATAGI ,
DIST: DHARWAD-581204.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.L. PATI L, ADVOCAT E)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KALGHA TAGI POLICE STAT ION,
REPRES ENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
3
DHARWAD BEN CH.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS /
ACCUSED N O.10 TO 14, 16 AND 17 ON BAI L IN
KALAGHATAGI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.112/ 2019
WHICH IS NUMBERED AS S.C.NO.20/2020 ON THE FILE
OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE,
DHARWAD, REGISTERED FOR THE OFF ENCES
PUNISHABLE UND ER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 448,
504, 506, 341, 307, 302, 324, 326, 120B, 201 R/ W
SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 27 OF THE ARMS
ACT, 1959.
RESERVED ON : 04.09.2020
PRON OUNCED ON : 08.09.2020
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORD ERS AND COMING ON
FOR PRONOUN CEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.100935/2020 has been filed by accused No.9 and Criminal Petition No.100951/2020 has been filed by accused Nos.10 to 14, 16 and 17 under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity). Both the petitions have been filed seeking bail in Crime 4 No.112/2019 of Kalaghatagi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 504, 506, 341, 307, 302, 324, 326, 120B, 201 read with Section 149 of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and under Section 27 of The Arms Act, 1959.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the brother of deceased Veerabhadrappa Basavanneppa Sattur. The said Veerabhadrappa was a member of Gram Panchayat for last 15 years and President of PLD Bank, Dhummawada Society. It is alleged that during the Gram Panchayat election, because of political rivalry, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 had grouse against Veerabhadrappa and that cases were filed against each other in the police station. The family of Pujar also had differences with his brother Veerabhadrappa in respect of performing pooja in Basavanna temple. On 09.09.2019, at about 7.00 pm, 5 the complainant was proceeding towards his house along with the cattle and when he passed on the road near the house of accused No.1-Basavaraj Shivappa Akki, accused No.2-Basavaraj Sangappa Akki, they took objection for using the pathway and picked up a quarrel and the complainant went to his house saying that he would not use the pathway henceforth. It is further alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 came to his house along with others, gained entry into the house and pulled him out of the house. The accused persons who were holding weapons in their hands started assaulting the complainant and dragged him to the land belonging to accused No.1-Basavaraj Shivappa Akki. Accused No.1 with talwar (chopper) assaulted on the right hand, accused No.13-Irayya Basaiah Pujar with iron rod assaulted on the person of the complainant. The wife of the complainant telephonically informed Veerabhadrappa-deceasead and Nagappa and both of them came to the spot along with their children 6 Ravikumar, Basavaraj and Eranna. The accused abused them. Accused No.3-Fakkirapa Prahald Chulaki and accused No.4-Krishna Chulaki with a talwar assaulted on the head of Veerabhadrappa and he fell down and at that time accused No.5-Mallappa Chulaki and accused No.6-Channiah Pujar threw stones on the head of Veerabhadrappa and he died on the spot. It is further alleged that accused No.2-Basavaraj Sangappa Akki and accused No.9-Sangappa Basappa Yemmetti caught hold of Ravikumar-deceased, accused No.7- Praveen Kallappa Karadi with talawar assaulted on his head and accused No.8-Siddaram Halappa Akki with iron rod assaulted on the head and caused injuries. It is further alleged that accused No.12-Maruthi Halappa Akki caught hold of Nagappa and accused No.10- Kallappa Basappa Karadi with talwar assaulted on the hand and that his fingers were cut off. Accused No.11- Mahesh Fakkirappa Karadi assaulted with club on his person. It is further alleged that accused No.14-Basiah 7 Fakkiruiah Pujar with club and accused No.15-Yallappa Basappa Yemmetti with iron pipe assaulted on the head and other parts of body of Basavaraj Nagappa Sattur. It is further alleged that accused No.16-Shekappa Hanamanthappa Jodalli with club, accused No.17- Shankriah Malliah Yadawad with a chopper assaulted on the left shoulder and other parts of the body of Iranna Kallappa Sattur and caused injuries. One Kasturi, Smt. Sarjavva Davalsab, Hussainsab, Fakkirappa, Basalingappa and others on coming to know of the incident, came there and pacified the quarrel. The incident is said to have taken place on 09.09.2019 at 8.00 pm and the injured were removed to the hospital for treatment. The said injured Ravikumar died during treatment on 10.09.2019. The respondent- police, after completion of the investigation, have submitted charge sheet. The petitioner/accused No.9 filed bail application in Crl.Misc.No.40/2020 and the same came to be rejected by order dated 19.05.2020 by 8 the Sessions Court. The petitioners/accused Nos.10 to 14, 16 and 17 have filed bail application in Crl.MIsc. No.96/2020 and the same came to be rejected by order dated 20.05.2020 by the Sessions Court. Therefore, they are before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the arguments of Sri. Vasant G. Holeyannavar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.100935/2020 and Sri. K.L. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P. No.100951/2020 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P. No. 100935/2020 that the petitioner/accused No.9 is the brother of accused No.15 who has contested the Gram Panchayat election against the deceased Veerabhadrappa and due to the political rivalry, the petitioner/accused No.9 and accused No.15 have been falsely implicated in this case. It is his 9 further submission that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is his further submission that the overt act alleged against the petitioner/accused No.9 is that he caught hold of deceased Ravikumar and accused Nos.7 and 8 assaulted with talwar and rod. It is his further submission that accused No.9 has not assaulted any one. It is his further submission that accused Nos.5, 6 and 15 are granted bail and the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. It is his further submission that charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.100951/2020 has submitted that the petitioners i.e., accused Nos.10 to 14, 16 and 17 have not assaulted any of the deceased i.e., either Veerabhadrappa or Ravikumar. The overt act alleged 10 against accused Nos.10, 11, 14, 16 and 17 are regarding assault made by them on Nagappa Sattur, Basavaraj Sattur and Iranna Sattur and the said assault is not on the vital parts of the body and they are only simple injuries. It is his further submission that the overt act alleged against accused No.12 is that he held Nagappa Sattur and there is no overt act alleged against accused No.13 and only his presence has been stated in the complaint. It is his further submission that the petitioners have been implicated only due to political rivalry. It is his further submission that accused Nos.5, 6 and 15 are granted bail by this Court and the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. It is his further submission that charge sheet has been filed and the petitioners are not required for any custodial interrogation. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition.
11
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that there are injured eyewitnesses to the incident and the case involves double murder. It is his further submission that the overt act of the petitioners have been specifically stated in the complaint and by the eyewitnesses which shows their involvement in the commission of the offence. It is his further submission that the wife of the deceased has filed an application before CPI seeking protection as there is threat to her life by the accused persons and in that regard, proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the petitioners. It is his further submission that if the petitioners are granted bail, they will commit similar offences and there is threat to the complainant and his family members. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petitions.
7. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the 12 petitions and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
8. 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 13 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."
9. In a decision reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of Uttara Pradesh and Another, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"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 14 periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society."
10. The overt act alleged against accused No.9 is that he caught hold of Ravikumar and accused No.s7 and 8 assaulted him with talwar and rod. Thre is no allegation that accused No.9 has assaulted any of the deceased or injured witnesses. The overt act alleged against accused No.12 is that he held Nagappa Sattur and accused No.10 assaulted Nagappa Sattur with sword to his fingers and accused No.11 has assaulted Nagappa Sattur with stick on body. The wound certificate of Nagappa Sattur reveal that 4 fingers are amputated and the said injury is grievous and that he has sustained cut lacerated wound on upper part of right elbow and the said injury is simple in nature. The overt act alleged against accused No.14 is that he assaulted Basavaraj Sattur with stick. The wound certificate of Basavaraj Sattur reveal that he has sustained injury to hand and it is opined that it is 15 grievous in nature. The overt act alleged against accused No.16 is that he assaulted Iranna Sattur with stick and accused No.17 assaulted Iranna Sattur with Machu. The wound certificate of Iranna Sattur reveal two injuries (i) cut lacerated wound over left upper arm and (ii) multiple contusions abrasion on left shoulder and they are opined to be simple in nature. No overt act is alleged against accused No.13 but his mere presence has been stated. Apart from the above said overt act by accused Nos.9 to 14, 16 and 17, no other overt acts have been alleged against them. There is no allegation of petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 14, 16 and 17 assaulting either deceased Veerabhadrappa or deceased Ravikumar. Therefore, the petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 14, 16 and 17 are entitled for grant of bail subject to certain terms and conditions. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioners are likely to cause threat to the complainant 16 and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail to petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 14, 16 and 17 subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Criminal Petition No. 100935/2020 and Criminal Petition No.100951/2020 are allowed. The petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 14, 16 and 17 shall be released on bail in Crime No.112/2019 of Kalghatagi Police Station subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 14, 16 and 17 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with two sureties for the like sum to the 17 satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Due to COVID-19, the petitioners are permitted to furnish sureties within two months. If circumstances arise, the jurisdictional Court is permitted to extend the period for furnishing sureties.
ii) The petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 14, 16 and 17 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 14, 16 and 17 shall not give any threat to the complainant and prosecution witnesses.
iv) The petitioners/accused Nos.9 to 14, 16 and 17 shall mark their attendance in the jurisdictional Police Station every Sunday between 10.00 am and 6.00 pm till disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv