Karnataka High Court
Shri Chidanand S/O Balakrishna Kammar vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2022
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
CRL.P No. 103819 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103819 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SHRI. CHIDANAND S/O. BALAKRISHNA KAMMAR
AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. SECUTIRY GUARD,
R/O. PARAKANATTI, TAL. HUKKERI,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591107.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. M. MUCHHANDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
YAMAKANAMARADI POLICE STATION,
DIST. BELAGAVI, PIN-591246,
REPRESENTED BY ITS,
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT. DHARWAD BENCH, PIN-580011
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO THE PETITION BE ALLOWED AND THE
-2-
CRL.P No. 103819 of 2022
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 11 MAY BE ENLARGED ON
REGULAR BAIL IN YAMAKANAMARADI P.S. CRIME NO.
185/2022 U/S 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 302, 504, 506, 201 R/W
149 IPC AND SECTION 25(1A) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT PENDING
FOR COMMITTAL IN C.C. NO. 1430/2022 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. COURT HUKKERI.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This successive petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.11 under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.185/2022 of Yamakanmardi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 120(B), 302, 504, 506 R/W 149 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecutions is that, one Smt. Ashwini Parashuram Halakarni has filed complaint stating that one Basavaraj Bharamappa -3- CRL.P No. 103819 of 2022 Galate (accused No.1) had run away with the daughter of one Irappa Chougala, who is also the chairman of Basaveshwar Bank and the said accused No.1 doubted the complainant's husband that he was supplying the information about the daughter of chairman to him. In another incident, the son of accused No.1 got hit by a ball and therefore, there was a fight with the complainant's husband and the elder by name Kallappa Siddappa Bhujamugol intervened and pacified the quarrel. In spite of the said aspect, accused No.1 is having grudge against the husband of complainant. It is further stated that about 25 days prior to filing of the complaint, the mother-in-law of complainant was roaming in front of their house, the said accused No.1-Basavaraj came from the back side in a very speed manner and stopped vehicle right in front of the mother-in-law and when she asked why he was doing so, the said accused No.1- -4- CRL.P No. 103819 of 2022 Basavaraj and 4 others got down to quarrel with the complainant's husband. There are cases registered of such a kind in the Yamakanmardi police station. It is further stated that, on 16.07.2022 at around 10:45 a.m, the complainant got a call from Mahantesh Maruti Ramgonhatti who is resident of Sindihatti stated that as they were coming back from Hanuman temple, her husband was riding a bike by No.KA.49/L-796 and at that time, accused Nos.1 to 8 and others with an intention of killing the complainant's husband Parashuram, dashed to his bike with eco sport car No.KA-22/MA-5280 intentionally and there was one more car where many other got down with dangerous weapons. The Parashuram had fallen to the side of the road by that time and the accused stated that they were waiting since many days and they had planned the same on Saturday. Accused Nos.1, 8 and 7 put red chilly powder into the eyes -5- CRL.P No. 103819 of 2022 of deceased Parashuram and started to shout that they should kill him. At that time, accused No.1 with the weapon he had in his hand assaulted the Parashuram on the head, accused No.2 assaulted the Parashuram on his chin, accused No.3 assaulted him on his right forehand, accused No.5 assaulted him on his left hand and accused No.6 assaulted him on the chest and others were giving bad words and hitting Parashuram. Thereafter hearing the same, the complainant went to the spot and saw the dead body with bleeding injuries. Accused persons get into the car and went away. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.185/2022 of Yamakanmardi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 120(B), 302, 504, 506 R/W 149 of IPC. The F.I.R came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 8 and others. This petitioner came to be arrested on 21.07.2022 and he is in judicial -6- CRL.P No. 103819 of 2022 custody. The petitioner-accused No.11 had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.5504/2022 and the same came to be rejected by the learned VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, Sitting at Chikkodi vide order dated 11.08.2022. The petitioner earlier at crime stage filed Criminal Petition No.102454/2022 before this Court seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by order dated 19.09.2022 on the ground that what is the role of this petitioner in commission of murder of deceased - parashuram is to be ascertained after filing of final report and at that time investigation was in progress. Thereafter, charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.5720/2022 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikkodi by order dated 23.11.2022. Therefore, -7- CRL.P No. 103819 of 2022 the petitioner-accused No.11 is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, the charge sheet has been filed against this petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, 1959. It is his further submission that there is no role of this petitioner in commission of murder of the deceased-Parashuram. The offence alleged against this petitioner is provided with punishment of minimum five years imprisonment which may extend to ten years. It is his further submission that the talwar alleged to have been manufactured by this petitioner and given it to accused No.1 is -8- CRL.P No. 103819 of 2022 not prohibited arm and the offence punishable under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act is not attracted. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the seized weapons have been sent for examination to the doctor who opined that the seized talwar can cause the injuries sustained by the deceased. The said talwar have been manufactured by this petitioner and given to accused No.1. The offence alleged against this petitioner is provided with punishment of imprisonment, minimum of five years which may extend to ten years. The charge sheet material shows prima facie case against the petitioner for -9- CRL.P No. 103819 of 2022 the offences alleged against him. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
7. The accusation leveled against the petitioner in the charge sheet that at the instant of accused No.1 he manufactured two talwar and given it to accused No.1. Accused No.1 and other accused said to have used those talwars for committing the murder of the deceased- Parashuram. There is no role of this petitioner/accused No.11 in the commission of murder of deceased-Parashuram. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Whether the offence punishable under Section 25(1A) of the
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 103819 of 2022 Arms Act is attracted, is a matter of trial. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. The main apprehension of the prosecution is that if the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of he again manufacturing talwar and giving it to other accused persons for using in commission of offence, can be met with by imposing stringent conditions.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.11 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime
- 11 -CRL.P No. 103819 of 2022
No.185/2022 of Yamakanmardi Police Station, subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Only) with one
surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdiction Court.
ii. The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii. The petitioner shall attend the Court
on all the dates of hearing, unless
exempted, and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
iv. The petitioner shall not manufacture any prohibited arms.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMM