Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Doddaningaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 April, 2017

Author: Rathnakala

Bench: Rathnakala

                             1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 03rd DAY OF APRIL, 2017

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.832 OF 2017

Between:

1.     Sri.Doddaningaiah,
       S/o Late Mahalingappa,
       Aged about 53 years,
       R/o Kallembella Village,
       Sira Taluk - 572 137
       Tumkur District

2.     Sri.Nagendra,
       S/o Thimmaraju,
       Aged about 40 years,
       Grama Panchayathi Member,
       R/o Kallembella Village,
       Sira Taluk - 572 137
       Tumkur District.                 ....Petitioners

(By Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, Advocate)

And:

The State of Karnataka
By Kallambella Police Station,
Sira Taluk, Tumkur District - 572 137
                             2




Represented by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka building,
Bangalore - 560 001                     ... Respondent

(By Sri.B.J.Eshwarappa, HCGP for Respondent;
Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya, Senior Advocate and
Sri. S. Sunil Kumar for Impleading Applicant)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in
Crime No.267/2016 of Kallambella Police Station,
Tumkur, for the offence punishable under Sections 302
of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

      This Criminal petition coming on for Orders this
day, the court made the following:

                        ORDER

Heard Sri. V. B. Siddaramaiah learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.J.Eshwarappa, learned HCGP.

2. The petitioners are charge sheeted by the respondent police in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 304, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and clause 3 (2) (V) SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, in Crime No.267/2016 dated 20.12.2016.

3

3. The allegation of the prosecution is that the first accused belongs to AK community and the second accused is a Vokkaliga by caste. On the night of 19.12.2016, the deceased obalaiah belonging to Schedule Tribe Nayaka community insisted the first accused for money to quench his thirst for alcohol and for his lunch in the daba; the cashier of the daba insisted them to move away from the daba. Thus, both of them while quarreling came to Tumkur/Sira service road. Second accused accidentally came to the spot in a motor cycle. The deceased quarreled against him and also abused him recklessly. That apart, he snatched the spectacles of accused No.1 and threw it away and accused No.1 pushed the deceased which made him fall on the motor bike. Since the motor bike was slanted by A2, he fell on left side of motor bike and then on the tar road on his back. Thus, his spinal cord was injured and he breathed his last then and there itself. 4

4. Perused the prosecution papers. The medical report is to the effect that the death is due to shock as a result of ueetebel (not legible) and spinal cord injury sustained. CW-1 is the wife of the deceased and she is not an eye witness. CWs 2-4 are the eye witnesses to the incident. Out of them, statements of CW-1 and 2 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C is recorded by the JMFC Court. CW-2 admitted in Section 164 statement that he is not an eye witness to the incident. Even otherwise, on a perusal of the statement of CW-3 and 4 also indicates that the incident was not premeditated and was instantaneous.

5. Since the investigation is complete and the petitioners are not shown with any criminal antecedents and they being permanent residents of cause title address, there is no impediment to allow the petition. 5

Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioners are enlarged on bail in Crime No.267/2016 of the respondent-Police, subject to following conditions:

(i) They shall execute a self-bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) They shall attend the Court on all hearing dates regularly and punctually.
(iii) They shall not threaten or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses and shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

While accepting the surety offered, the concerned Court shall examine the original documents pertaining to immovable properties of the sureties and their Identity Cards/Aadhar Cards.

Sd/-

JUDGE dn/ns