Karnataka High Court
Iranagouda Appanagouda Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 November, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.102074/2021
BETWEEN:
IRANAGOUDA APPANAGOUDA PATI L,
AGE: 44 YEARS , OCC: A GRICULTURE,
R/O. AMATUR VI LLAGE, BAILHONGA L,
DIST: BELA GAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.HARS HAW ARDHANA M. PATI L, ADVOCAT E)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BAILHONGAL POLICE STATION ,
R/BY STATE PUBLI C PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BEN CH.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP)
---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKIN G TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON A NTICIPATORY BAIL IN BAILHONGAL
P.S . CRIME NO.230/2021 F OR THE OFF ENCES
PUNISHABLE U/Ss. 307, 341 AND 504 AND 506 R/ W
SECTION 34 OF I PC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.230/2021 of Bailhongal Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, one Rakesh Shivanand Hosur has filed a complaint stating that, he is the resident of Bailhongal, owning lands at Amtur village and daily he used to travel to Amtur village from 3 Bailhongal. It is further stated that, last year during the time of sugarcane harvesting, he had taken the gang which had been called by the petitioner-accused No.1 for harvesting sugarcane to his land. At that time, the petitioner had objected to the same and he had also threatened the complainant. Since the said incident, the petitioner-accused No.1 had anger against the complainant. It is further alleged that, on 24.09.2021, when the complainant was proceeding on his two wheeler in order to pay wages to the agricultural labours at Amtur Village, at about 02.00 p.m., when he was near Dyamavva Temple, the petitioner-accused No.1 obstructed him and abused him by stating as to why he was coming to the village despite being warned from entering to the village. When the 4 complainant informed him that he had come to pay the wages to the labours, then the petitioner abused him and threatened to commit his murder and thereafter he took up a stick fallen there and assaulted the complainant on his head with an intention to commit his murder. When the complainant tried to escape, accused Nos.2 and 3 caught hold of him and he was rescued by one Nilkanth. Thereafter the petitioner-accused No.1 and the accused Nos.2 and 3 went away by threatening the life of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant was shifted to the Government Hospital, Bailhongal and there he filed the complaint, which came to be registered in Crime No.230/2021 by the Bailhongal Police Station for the aforesaid offences.
5
The petitioner apprehending his arrest, has filed Crl.Misc.No.1099/2021 along with accused Nos.2 and 3 and the same came to be rejected by order dated 18.10.2021 by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, insofar as the petitioner-accused No.1 is concerned, whereunder, accused Nos.2 and 3 have been granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It would be the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the 6 complainant and therefore, a false case came to be registered against him. It is his further submission that the complainant, who is said to have sustained injury, has been discharged from the hospital. It is his further submission that, accused Nos.2 and 3 have been granted anticipatory bail and therefore, on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. With these, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the case is at the investigation stage. There are nine cases registered against the petitioner-accused No.1 and in one of the cases in Crime No.236/2015 of Kittur Police Station, the petitioner-accused No.1 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 344, 7 366-A, 370 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is his further submission that, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from justice. With these, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the FIR, complaint and the order passed by the Session Court.
7. The accusation leveled against the petitioner-accused No.1 is that, he took up 8 quarrel with the complainant and assaulted him with stick on his head and caused injury with the intention to commit his murder. The case is at the investigation stage. There are nine cases registered against the petitioner. As there are criminal antecedents, the petitioner- accused No.1 is not entitled for grant of discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. One of the offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner has not made out any grounds for granting anticipatory bail.
Hence, this petition is dismissed. If the petitioner voluntarily surrenders before the Jurisdiction Court and thereafter files bail application, then the same has to be 9 considered on merits and to be disposed of within seven days.
Sd/-
JUDGE R H/ g ab