Karnataka High Court
Murali S/O Dasara Obayya vs The State Of Karnataka, on 29 May, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100897/2017
BETWEEN:
1. MURALI S/O DASARA OBAYYA
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
2. DASARA OBAYYA S/O LATE YERROBAIAH
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. BORASWAMY S/O LATE YERROBAIAH
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. DHARMAIAH S/O DASAROBAYYA
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. RAMACHANDRA S/O YERRI BORAIAH
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
6. BOSEMALLAIAH S/O SANNAMALLAIAH
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
7. PAVANA W/O SURAPAPAYYA
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
8. SAVITHRAMMA W/O RAJANNA
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
9. EKANATHA S/O SANNA MALLAIAH
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
10. PALAYYA S/O SANNA MALLAIAH
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
:2:
11. JUMMOBANAHALLI SURESH S/O RAJAPPA
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
12. PRASHANTHA S/O SURAPAPAYYA
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
13. RAGHU S/O BORAIAH
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
14. PAVITHRA W/O RAGHU
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
15. BASAMMA W/O DASARA OBAIAH
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
16. KARIBASAMMA @ BASAMMA W/O EKANTHAPPA
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
17. MALLAMMA W/O PALAIAH
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
18. OBAMMA W/O LATE BORAIAH
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
19. MALLAMMA W/O SURPAVAIAH
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
20. VINODAMMA D/O DASARA OBAIAH
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
21. PRABHAKARA S/O RAJANNA
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
22. SANNAMALLAIAH S/O KATE MALLAYYA
AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ALL R/O: HUDEM VILLAGE,
TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE. )
:3:
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH HOSAHALLI PS,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
... RESPONDENT
(By SRI.R.RAVINDRA NAIK HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.27/2017 OF HOSAHALLI POLICE
STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 504 AND 506 READ
WITH 149 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 23 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.27/ 2017. :4:
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that one Smt.Prameelamma has filed the complaint stating that, on 02.03.2017 at 6.15 p.m. during festival of their village due to earlier enmity of civil dispute pending between them, while the petitioner-Chinnobayya, the younger brother of the complainant tried to climb the Choudayana Katte by holding the shoulder of the petitioner-Murali to see the auction of deity garlands, the petitioners in Crime No.27/2017 by forming unlawful assembly with common object of picking quarrel with the complainant and others, abused in indecent words and threatened with life and assaulted with hands, stones and bricks and attempted to commit the murder.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 and 8 to 23 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the submission that, looking to the complaint averments the dispute and the cause of incident between two parties is civil dispute which is pending before the Court. The learned :5: Counsel further made the submission that, the petitioners also filed complaint against the complainant and others which is registered in Crime No.28/2017. It is also his submission that, looking to the injuries even they were not admitted into the hospital, only getting the treatment on the same day went back, then filed the complaint. Hence the learned counsel submitted that since there are case and counter cases and the dispute because of the civil matter pending before the Court, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioners may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that, looking to the prosecution material there is prima-facie case made out by the prosecution against all the petitioners, hence he submitted that, matter is still under investigation and petitioners are not entitled for the grant of bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR and complaint and also order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application and also :6: considered oral submission of both counsels at the bar. Looking to the allegations of complaint as it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that complaint itself mentioned regarding to the civil dispute pending before Court. Apart from that, looking to the complaint allegations there is no specific allegations as to what is the role played by each of the accused, only the vague allegations are made against the petitioners that they assaulted the complainant and other persons on her side. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioners also filed the complaint against the complainant and others, which is registered in Crime No.28/2017. The injuries are concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution that grievous injuries have been caused and the injured admitted to the hospital and still they are in hospital. As submitted that on the very same day by taking the treatment injured went back and then filed complaint. Though the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC is non-bailable in nature, but exclusively not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, :7: by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be admitted to anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent Police is directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.27/2017 for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioners have to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-each, and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of arresting authority.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the IO for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ckk