Karnataka High Court
Nagappa @ Nagangouda S/O. Basavanneppa vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2013
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10 t h DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11638 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. NAGAPPA @ NAGANGOUDA
S/O. BASAVANNEPPA IDIGOUDRA
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
2. PRAKASH @ PRAKASHGOUDA
S/O. BASAVANNEPPA IDIGOUDRA
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
3. PUTTAPPA @ PUTTANGOUDA
S/O. BASAVAENEPPA IDIGOUDRA
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
4. HONNAPPA @ HONNANAGOUDA
S/O. BASAVANNEPPA IDIGOUDRA
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
5. BASANAGOUDA @ BASAPPA
S/O. BASANGOUDA IDIGOUDRA
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE R/O. MEVUNDI,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. K M SHIRALLI ADV.)
:2:
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
GUTTAL P.S.
REPTD. BY SPP, DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri.V.M.BANAKAR, ASPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN
S.C.NO.39/2013 ARISING OUT OF GUTTAL P.S. CRIME
NO.152/2012, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DIST. &
SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI, REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 302, 451,
504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 facing charge for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 302, 451, 504, 506 read with Sections 149 of IPC.
2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. It reveals:
One Maruti S/o.Tirakappa Kari lodged a report at Guttal Police station on 05.12.2012 seeking action :3: against the petitioners and others on the allegation that petitioners and their associates owned lands adjacent to Varada and Tungabhadra rivers. It is near the land of complainant. There was a dispute relating to path-way between them, consequent to which, petitioners were enimical and were trying to subdue them.
3. On 05.12.2012 at 7.30 a.m., the petitioners and their associates went to the house of the complainant and as soon as they saw the complainant, they abused them and started indiscriminate assault. Petitioner No.1/Nagappa and petitioner No.2/Prakash lifted the agricultural implements and assaulted on the head of Honnappa causing brutal injuries and when complainant's father intervened, he was also assaulted. Petitioner No.5 assaulted the complainant's father with an iron rod and so also petitioner No.4. In this manner, they not only assaulted in an attempt to kill Honnappa, but :4: made similar attempt on the life of complainant and his father. The report was registered in Crime No.152/2012 and during investigation, petitioners and their associates were arrested. They have been interrogated and certain recoveries have been made. Final report is filed indicting them for the principal charge of an offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.
4. They sought bail it was rejected by this Court and then again, they have renewed their request before the trial Judge. In the resultant position, they have remained in custody.
5. The petitioners' counsel would submit no role is attributed to petitioners 3, 4 and 5 in this case and no material is collected by the prosecution to establish nexus between their act and the death of Honnappa. As a regards accused Nos.1 and 2, he submits, they are innocent persons and have not indulged in the act. He would draw my attention to :5: the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.10748/2013 and thus, seeks benefit of bail to the petitioners also.
6. Sri.V.M.Banakar, learned Addl.SPP ha s opposed the grant of bail referring to the overt-acts of each of the petitioners.
7. Based on the material collected, it could be seen that petitioners 1 and 2 have assaulted Honnappa with agricultural implements on the head. The object used is dangerous and was capable of causing fatal injuries. They have achieved the object. Honnappa died suffering injuries caused by them. Therefore, there is sufficient material. Similar role is attributed to accused No.6--petitioner No.5. He has used iron rod to cause injuries to the victim. As far as petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned, they are also alleged to have assaulted the complainant and his father, CWs-8 and 9. Therefore, the role played by them is different.
:6:
8. The persons, who witnessed the incident, have described their overt-acts vividly which leaves no scope for doubt, even at this juncture, that petitioners 1, 2 and 5 are responsible for the unfortunate death of Honnappa. CWs.8 and 9 have escaped by good fortune, lest, they would have also been the victims. However, in the matter of grant of bail, we normally consider the felonious propensity of the accused, their overt-acts and its ultimate result. The role attributed to petitioners 1, 2 and 5 speaks of brutality in their action and their intention to sniff life of Honnappa. Thus, they do not deserve liberty as sought.
9. However, petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned, though they are alleged to have caused injuries, the victims have suffered only simple injuries. That itself would show, they had no deliberate intention to cause greater harm to the victims. Therefore, they :7: stand on different pedestal and they would be entitled to the benefit of bail.
10. Being of this view, the request of bail by petitioner No.1/Nagappa @ Nagangouda, petitioner No.2/Prakash @ Prakashgouda and petitioner No.5/Basanagouda @ Basappa is rejected.
Petitioner No.3/Puttappa @ Puttangouda and petitioner No.4/Honnappa @ Honnanagouda are granted bail subject to following conditions:-
i. Petitioners 3 and 4 shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only] each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Judge;
ii. They shall mark their attendance before the S.H.O. of the jurisdictional police Station, once in fifteen days, till commencement of trial.:8:
iii. They shall not tamper the prosecution material or prevail upon witnesses by any means.
SD/-
JUDGE RK/-