Ramanna @ Ramesh S/O Swamappa @ Somappa vs The State Of Karnataka, on 7 January, 2015

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ramanna @ Ramesh S/O Swamappa @ Somappa vs The State Of Karnataka, on 7 January, 2015

Bench: Rathnakala

                          1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

         CRIMINAL PETITION No. 101992/2014

BETWEEN:

1.   RAMANNA @ RAMESH
     S/O SWAMAPPA @ SOMAPPA
     PUJARI @ MADAR,
     AGE: 28 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURIST.

2.   MUKAPPA @ DURAGAPPA
     S/O SHIVAPPA PUJARI @ MADAR
     AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

3.   CHANDAPPA
     S/O DALAPPA PUJARI
     AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE.

4.   HULAGAVVA
     W/O GYANAPPA PUJARI @ MADAR
     AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE.

5.   GYANAVVA W/O KANAKAPPA
     PUJARI @ MADAR
     AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE

6.   GYANAPPA S/O SOMAPPA
     MADAR @ PUJARI
     AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.

7.   YALLAPPA
                             2




      S/O SOMAPPA PUJARI @ MADAR
      AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

8.    BHIMAPPA
      S/O HANAMAPPA PUJARI @ MADAR
      AGE: 20 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURIST

9.    PARASAPPA S/O YANKAPPA
      MADAR @ PUJARI
      AGE: 32 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURIST

10.   SUNIL S/O KANAKAPPA
      PUJARI @ MADAR
      AGE: 20 YEARS,
      OCC: AGRICULTURIST

11.   SANGAPPA
      S/O YAMANAPPA MADAR @ PUJARI
      AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE

12.   SANJEEV S/O RAMAPPA HOSAMANI
      AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE

13.   GOPAL @ GYANAPPA
      S/O NIJAVVA PUJARI @ MADAR
      AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE

14.   TIPPANNA S/O HANAMANT
      MADAR @ PUJARI
      AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE

15.   MAHADEVI W/O RAMAPPA HOSAMANI
      AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE

ALL ARE R/O. BEVOOR VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. BAGALKOT.
                                        ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI J BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
                                3




AND :

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(THROUGH RURAL P.S.BAGALKOT)
RPTD. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
                                            ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.S. PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL
IN CRIME NO.259/2014 REGISTERED BY BAGALKOT
RURAL POLICE STATION, BAGALKOT FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 148, 324, 302, 504, 506 R/W
149 OF IPC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The petitioners along with ten co-accused persons are alleged to have indulged in committing the murder of the wife of the complainant. They have been charge sheeted in Crime No.259/2014 of Bagalkot Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The case of the prosecution is, on 19.10.2014 there was a quarrel between the accused party and complainant party during the night hours. In pursuance of the same, there was stone pelting and one of the stone hit the head of the complainant's wife: on the way to the hospital she succumbed to the head injury. Accused Nos.18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 24 have been granted bail by this Court in Crl.P. No.101984/2014 on 19.12.2014.

3. It is the submission at the bar that on the complaint of accused No.11 case is registered against 20 accused persons in Crime No.260/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 148, 336, 341, 452, 307, 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. The petitioners are innocent. There is no material linking them to the alleged offences, their identity and complicity in the incident is not established. The case is registered against the petitioners only on suspicion and they had to be treated in parity with the other accused persons, who were granted anticipatory bail by this Court. 5

4. Sri K.S. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition and submits that since the investigation is not yet complete, enlarging the petitioners on bail will cause hindrance to the further investigation and their petition is liable to be rejected.

5. The petitioners are in custody for more than 79 days. Some of the accused persons are said to have suffered injuries during the incident. The weapon used for the offence is a stone. The aggressor is not specifically named in the complaint. In the given facts and circumstances of the case there is no impediment to allow the petition. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions :

i) The petitioners are enlarged on bail in Crime No.259/2014 of Bagalkot Rural Police Station on each of them executing a self bond of Rs.50,000/- along with one surety for the likesum.

ii) They shall not prevail upon the prosecution witnesses.

iii) They shall appear before the Investigation Officer as and when called for.

Sd/-

JUDGE hnm/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court