Karnataka High Court
Manjunath @ Manjappa S/O Siddappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2018
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRL.P.NO.100982/2018 C/W
CRL.P.NOs. 101052/2018 & 101211/2018
CRL.P NO 100982 OF 2018
BETWEEN
MANJUNATH @ MANJAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA PADIGODI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: NAZIK-LAKAMAPUR,
TQ/DIST: HAVERI.
..... PETITIONER
(BY SRI LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HAVERI RURAL POLICE, HAVERI,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT PREMISES,
DHARWAD.
..... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER HEREIN ON BAIL FOR THE CASE REGISTERED
IN 76/2017 BY THE HAVERI RURAL POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323,
302, 447, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.
:2:
CRL.P NO 101052 OF 2018
BETWEEN
CHANDRAPPA S/O HANAMANTAPPA PADIGODI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: NAZIK-LAKAMAPUR,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
..... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIDYASHANKAR G DALWAI, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS P.S.I.,
HAVERI RURAL POLICE STATION,
HAVERI CIRCLE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
..... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 ON REGULAR BAIL IN
C.C.NO.709/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.) & JMFC, HAVERI (HAVERI RURAL POLICE STATION
CRIME NO.76/2017) FOR AN OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 302, 447, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF
IPC.
CRL.P NO 101211 OF 2018
BETWEEN
1. BEERAPPA S/O BASAPPA PADIGODI,
AGED ABOUT: 60 YEARS,
:3:
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NAJEEK-LAKAMAPUR,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
2. NINGAPPA S/O HANUMANTAPPA PADIGODI,
AGED ABOUT: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NAJEEK-LAKAMAPUR,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
3. PARAMESHAPPA S/O SHIDDAPPA PPADIGODI,
AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NAJEEK-LAKAMAPUR,
TQ & DIST: HAVERI.
..... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ARAVIND D KULKARNI, ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THORUGH HAVERI RURAL POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
..... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO
PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1,3 AND 6 AS PER CHARGESHEET
HEREIN IN C.C.NO. 709/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC, HAVERI (HAVERI RURAL POLICE
STATION CRIME NO.76/2017) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 323, 302, 447,
504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.
:4:
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER
These bail petitions have been filed by the petitioners/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in respect of Crime No.76/2017 of Haveri Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 302, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. As these petitions arise out of the same crime number, they are heard together and disposed off by this common order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and so also learned H.C.G.P. for the State.
3. Factual matrix of the case relating to the Crime No.76/2017 are concerned, it is stated that complainant along with her husband and children were cultivating the land in R.S.No.25 measuring 25 acres 9 gunta of Nazik- lakamapur, which is their ancestral property. Thus being the facts, prior to one year, one Siddappa Basappa Padagodi and others have filed a suit in O.S.No.88/2016 against the complainant's husband and other family members claiming share in the aforesaid landed property :5: and obtained injunction. It is further alleged that in order to get possession of the said land, on 25.04.2017, the accused persons were quarreled with complainant's family and also assaulted the family members of complainant. On 19.05.2017, when the complainant along with her husband, son and uncle were cultivating the land, at 9.30 a.m., all the accused persons farmed an unlawful assembly and trespassed the land of complainant. They started abusing the complainant's husband and her family members and with an intention to do away with the lives of complainant's husband and uncle assaulted them by deadly weapons. The husband and uncle of the complainant sustained grievous injuries. Both were shifted to hospital. The husband of the complainant-Siddappa declared dead at the hospital and uncle of the complainant-Bannappa shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubballi, for further treatment and on the next day, i.e., 20.05.2017, at 4.30 am., he succumbed to the injuries. On the date of incident, the complainant lodged a complaint before Haveri Rural Police. Based on the complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime :6: No.76/2017 for the aforesaid offenses. The Investigating Officer rushed to the spot and conducted spot panchanama in the presence of panchas. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, accused person were apprehended. The petitioners herein who are accused Nos.1, 3, 5, 6 have filed these petitions seeking bail in the aforesaid crime.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.100982/2018 submits that this petitioner is arraigned as accused No.9 in the charge sheet. Petitioner is a handicap person and has not committed any crime. He is falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that accused Nos.2, 7, 11, 12 and 16 have already granted bail by this Court. On principle of parity, this petitioner may also be granted bail. Petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. On all these grounds, learned counsel seeks for grant of bail. :7:
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.101052/2018 submits that this petitioner is arraigned as accused No.5 in the charge sheet. He further submits that petitioner is falsely implicated in the case. This Court has granted bail to the co-accused and hence, principle of parity may extend to this petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is law abiding citizen and he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.1, 3, 6 in the charge sheet. First petitioner who is accused No.1 is aged 60 years. The co-accused have already been enlarged on bail in Crl.P.No.101211/2018. Hence, he prays for grant of bail.
7. Learned H.C.G.P. for the State opposes the bail petitions filed by the accused on the ground that accused Nos.1, 3 and 9 said to be used the club as well as the chopper and caused injuries to Bannappa who died on 20.05.2017 and Siddappa who last his breath on :8: 19.05.2017 said to be inflicted injuries and same has been reflected in Postmortem report. The Postmortem report reveals that deceased Banneppa inflicted nine injuries over his body and deceased Siddappa inflicted four injuries all over his body. CWs-11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. He further submits that the statements of witnesses corroborating the injuries reveal in postmortem report and also clearly show that the prima facie materials are available against the accused. On all these grounds, learned H.C.G.P. urged and seeking dismissal of these petitions filed by the accused as they are not deserving for the bail.
8. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners so also learned H.C.G.P. for the State relating to the case in Crime No.76/2017, whereas the FIR said to be recorded by the police based on the complaint filed by the complainant who is the wife of the deceased Siddappa. The incident occurred on 19.05.2017 at about 9.30 am. wherein an :9: unlawful assembly by holding deadly weapons in their hands and committed the murder of the deceased Siddappa on 19.05.2017 whereas he last his breath on the scene of crime. Injured Bannappa last his breath on 20.05.2017 while he was under treatment. The postmortem report of deceased Siddappa revels that four injuries were found on his body and doctor has opined that "death is due to intracranial hemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries sustained". In respect of deceased Bannappa is concerned, he had sustained nine external injuries inflicted on his body and doctor has opined that "death is due to respiratory as a result of head injury sustained". Admittedly, the cause for the incident is based on a civil suit in O.S.No.88/2016 filed by some of the accused persons against the complainant's husband and other family members claiming share in the aforesaid landed property and obtained injunction. The complainant and accused are relative to each other. However, at a cursory glance to the entire materials collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation in order to lay the charge sheet against the accused are : 10 : suffice. However, it is relevant to state that though enough materials have been secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation relating to the offences against the accused and it is enough to lay the charge sheet against the accused, it cannot be said that there are enough materials to decline the bail as sought for by the accused persons. However, co-accused have already granted bail by this Court relating to the same crime by imposing suitable conditions. The copies of the bail orders have been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the purpose of perusal such as Crl.P.No.100337/2018 c/w Crl.P.No.100306/2018 & Crl.P.No.100359/2018 dated 26.03.2018.
9. Therefore, at this stage, it is said that it does not require for any detailed discussion, while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused, as there are substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking for the relief of bail. Whereas, learned H.C.G.P. submits that if the accused are supposed to be released on bail, certainly they would come in the way of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence. : 11 : This apprehension expressed by the learned H.C.G.P., could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners/accused deserve for the relief of bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The bail petitions filed by the petitioners/accused in Crl. P. No.101211/2018, Crl. P. No.100982/2018 & Crl. P. No.101052/2018 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:
i) Petitioners/accused shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with likesum surety to the satisfaction of trial Court in C.C. No.709/2017 arose in Crime No.76/2017 of Haveri Rural Police Station.
ii) Petitioners/accused shall mark their attendance once in a month i.e., on first week of Sunday, as per the English monthly calendar in between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. pending disposal of entire case.: 12 :
iii) Petitioners/accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of Haveri District without prior permission from the concerned Court of law.
iv) Petitioners/accused shall cooperate with the trial Court for disposal of the case.
v) Petitioners/accused shall not tamper or hamper the case of prosecution witnesses.
vi) Petitioners/accused shall not indulge with any other criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioners/accused violate any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
Sd/-
JUDGE Naa