Karnataka High Court
Paramesh Yallappa Hattal vs The State By Laxmeshwar Police Station on 11 April, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100609/2017
BETWEEN:
PARAMESH YALLAPPA HATTAL
@ HARTAL
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. BATTUR VILLAGE
TQ: SHIRAHATTI
DIST: GADAG
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A. B. PATIL, ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE BY LAXMESHWAR POLICE STATION
LAXMESHWAR,
REP:BY ADDL. P.P
H.C.B AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE
PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.21/2017, REGISTERED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147,
:2:
148, 353, 332, 323, 395, 307, 436, 427, 504 & 506 R/W
SEC.149 OF I.P.C. AND SEC.3 & 4 OF P.D.P.P. ACT AND
UNDER SEC.66 OF I.T. ACT, BY THE LAXMESHWAR
POLICE STATION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 332, 323, 395, 307, 436, 427, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of P.D.P.P. Act and Section 66 of I.T. Act, registered in respondent- Police Station Crime No.21/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that one Mudiyamanavar, Head Constable of Laxmeshwar Police Station, lodged a complaint before the Laxmeshwar Police Station on 05.02.2017 in respect of the incident dated 04.02.2017 :3: coming under Laxmeshwar Police Station limits and has alleged that on 04.02.2017, PSI made entries in S.H.D handed over charge to the complainant and left for investigation and returned at 5:15pm registered a case and left Police Station and night at about 10.15p.m. again making necessary entries in S.H.D., entrusted charge and left in his Jeep, morning at about 4.30a.m. on 05.02.2017 the dead body of one Shivappa Goni brought to the Police Station and taken to mortuary of the Hospital. When the complainant returned to the Police Station, hundreds of people had blocked the Police Station gate keeping Tractors, meanwhile again some people brought back the dead body of Shivappa on a pickup van from the mortuary to the Police Station and alleging that the PSI has beaten the said Shivappa Goni, caused disturbance and beaten the complainant, HC - C.R.Savanur and sentry - P.C. Puranur caused injury, trespassed into the Police Station, damaged the furniture, computers, wireless set and put the :4: motorcycles, one Jeep to ablaze, put the Police Station to fire and caused the loss to the tune of Rs.50 - 60 Lakhs public property and also caused disturbance to the public duty, etc. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the above said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.7 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the FIR was registered, name of the petitioner was not figured in the FIR, but subsequently, in the charge sheet petitioner has been arrayed as one of the accused. He has also submitted that one of the accused has already been granted bail by the order of the Sessions Judge. Hence, by imposing any conditions, present petitioner may be released on bail.
:5:
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that the very allegations in the complaint shows that the mob attacked and ransacked the Police Station, they caused damage to the computers, damaged the case data, set fire to the vehicles and caused loss to the tune of Rs50-60 Lakhs to the Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 395, 307, 436 along with other offences, which are serious in nature. Hence, submitted that petitioner is not entitled for bail.
6. I have perused the ground urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
7. The allegations made in the complaint and the materials produced clearly show that there is prima-facie material placed against the petitioner about his involvement in committing the alleged offence. The manner in which the alleged offence said to have been taken place that there is an attack on the Police Station :6: by the mob and they set fire to the property of the Police Station and even they tried to assault the Head Constable and the sentry of the Police Station and they ran away from the Police Station through the back door. Considering all these aspects of the matter and as the offence alleged are serious in nature, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and to release him on bail. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR