Karnataka High Court
Sri. Daval S/O Noorsab Hosamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2018
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101208 OF 2018
BETWEEN
SRI. DAVAL S/O NOORSAB HOSMANI,
AGE:25 YEARS,OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. GINIGERI,TAL:KOPPAL,
DIST:KOPPAL. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B MALAGOUDAR, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH PSI KOPPAL RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
SPP OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE ACCUSED
NO.18/PETITIONER ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AS DEEMED FIT IN, SC(AC)NO.30/2018
KOPPAL RURAL P.S.CRIME NO.22/2018 U/SECS.143, 147,
148, 341, 504, 307, 506, 109, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC AND ST
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989.
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Koppal Rural P.S. in Crime No.22/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 307, 506, 109,201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 besides Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Since from the date of his arrest, the petitioner is in judicial custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is praying for enlargement of the petitioner on regular bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent - State. :3:
3. It is stated in the complaint that the nephew of the complainant by name Ganesh, who works in KSRTC and he is a Kabaddi player and used to take part in various competitions and was successfully winning in a tournament and along with that he trains young boys in his village and accordingly, he use to participate in Kabaddi tournament along with his team and he has won in many competitions. In this regard, there was enmity developed between the said Ganesh and accused No.1 and others. On 7.2.2018 at about 6.00 p.m. when the complainant-Channappa and Gopi standing near bus stand, at that time Ganesh came there and invited both of them for tea and as such all together went to Manjunath Hotel and Ganesh told them that he will get recharge his mobile phone and come back. The complainant saw Ganesh going to Mobile Currency shop, while Ganesh was returning, he saw accused No.1 namely Vijay Maruteppa Haligeri and associates :4: came there and started assaulting Ganesh from stick, iron rods indiscriminately on his body and accused persons took injured Ganesh in a motor cycle to the farm land belonging to accused No.1-Vijaya Maruteppa Haligeri and therein accused persons again assaulted the injured Ganesh with deadly weapons all over his body and thereafter, accused persons threw injured Ganesh near District Hospital, Koppal. On filing of the complaint by complainant a case came to be registered for the alleged offences and thereafter, the investigation was conducted by the Investigation Officer and charge sheet has been laid against the accused persons in S.C.(AC)No.30/2018 which is pending before the District and Sessions Court, Koppal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has taken through the complaint filed by the complainant, the FIR recorded by the Police in Crime No.22/2018, wherein the :5: Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and conducted the mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses. Further contended that there is no role made by this accused to commit the alleged offences. Subsequent to registration of the crime, the I.O. took up investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused in S.C.No.30/2018 by recording statements of the witnesses and drew the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses relating to the offence having committed by this accused with other accused persons, but there is no specific materials against him. But this accused is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest and moreover the co- accused has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.101158/2018 dated 02.08.2018. As those accused as well as this accused are in the similar footing and to extend the principles of parity for consideration of bail petition. Therefore, the :6: learned counsel for the petitioner is praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent - State opposes the petition filed by the petition by submitting that charge leveled against the present petitioner is seriousness in nature found in the statement of witnesses as well as reveals in the would certificate and it appears that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner/accused and accordingly, the learned HCGP prayed to reject the bail petition, as the petitioner does not deserve for bail as sought for.
6. Having regard to the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned HCGP for the respondent - State and having gone through the materials that is the complaint as well as the substances reflected in the FIR and also the materials collected by the Investigating Officer, it reveals that though this accused is participated in the :7: incident, as narrated in the complaint, but there is no specific overt act attributed against this accused in committing the alleged offences and also in causing injuries on the parts of the injured, as indicated in the wound certificate as well as materials which were collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
Similar contention is taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner for seeking the relief of bail. Whereas, learned counsel empathetically submitted that co-accused have already been granted bail in Criminal Petition No.101158/2018 by imposing certain conditions, as specified therein. Therefore, the role made by that accused as well as this accused are in the similar footing. Therefore, the bail petition filed by the accused be considered on the ground of principles of parity and so also the accused is ready to abide any terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail to him. Therefore, at this stage, it is said :8: that it does not require for any detailed discussion, while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioner, as there are substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking for the relief of bail. Whereas, the learned HCGP submits that, if the petitioner is supposed to be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence. As this apprehension expressed by the learned HCGP, could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions: :9:
(1) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a likesum surety to the satisfaction of the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal in S.C.(A.C)No.30/2018 where the case is pending.
(2) The petitioner shall not tamper or hamper the case of prosecution witnesses.
(3) The petitioner shall appear before the Court below on all the dates of hearing without fail.
(4) The petitioner shall not indulge with any other criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
SD/-
JUDGE VB