Karnataka High Court
Basanagouda S/O Motanagouda Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 10th Day of February 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
Criminal Petition No. 101551/2016
Between
1. Basanagouda s/o Motanagouda Patil,
Aged about 53 years,
Occ.: Agriculturist, r/o Kalmadavu,
Savanur Tq, Haveri-District.
2. Praveen s/o Basanagouda Patil,
Aged about 22 years,
Occ.: Agriculturist,
r/o Kalmadavu,
Savanur Tq, Haveri-District.
3. Shambu s/o Kuruvatteppa
Malakannavar,
Aged about 45 years,
Occ.: Agriculturist,
r/o Kalmadavu,
Savanur Tq, Haveri-District.
4. Gadigeppa s/o Kuruvatteppa
Malakannavar,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ.: Agriculturist,
r/o Kalmadavu,
Savanur Tq, Haveri-District.
5. Nagappa s/o Bylappa Savanur,
Aged about 43 years,
Occ.: Agriculturist,
2
r/o Kalmadavu,
Savanur Tq, Haveri-District.
6. Shivalingappa s/o Kuruvatteppa
Malakannavar,
Aged about 53 years,
Occ.: Agriculturist,
r/o Kalmadavu,
Savanur Tq, Haveri-District.
7. Siddalingeshappa,
S/o Shivanagouda Patil,
Aged about 20 years,
Occ.: Agriculturist,
r/o Kalmadavu,
Savanur Tq, Haveri-District.
- Petitioners
(By Sri H.R. Gundappa, Advocate)
And
The State of Karnataka,
Through Savanur P.S.,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bench at Dharwad.
- Respondent
(by Sri Shivaprabhu S. Hiremath, AGA)
This Criminal Petition is filed under 438 of Cr.P.C. praying
to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in
Crime No. 175/2016 for the offences punishable under Section
143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC &
etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:
3
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent. Perused the records.
2. The first information report lodged by one Sanjeeva Gowda son of Veerana Gowda reveal that on 20.11.2016, the complainant and other persons by name Basavana Gowda, Praveen, Shambu, Gadigeppa, Nagappa, Shivalingappa and Siddalingappa had been to their land in Kalamavadu village, for the purpose of harvesting jawar crop. At that time, at about 5.15 PM, the accused persons (petitioners herein) went there and started quarrelling with them. All the accused assaulted the complainant and his family members with club, chopper on different parts of the body. In turn, they also threatened with dire consequences of killing. Having sustained injuries, the injured persons have been admitted to the hospital in Puna. On the basis of the above complaint, the Police have registered a case in Crime No. 175/2016 for 4 the offences punishable under Section 506, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 of IPC.
3. The petitioners have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail when they were unsuccessful before the Sessions Court. This Court had an occasion to deal with the same incident in connection with Crime No. 174/2016 filed by one Gadigeppa, who is the petitioner No.4 in this petition and the Police have also registered a case on the basis of the above said FIR for the offences punishable under Section 506, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 324 of IPC. This Court, in fact after considering the factual aspects of the case rejected the bail petition so far as the persons who are actually assaulted the injured persons. However, enlarged the women folk who were only named in the FIR in the said case. This is a counter case filed by Sanjeeva Gowda with respect to the same incident.
5
4. There is absolutely no difference of date, time and place with regard to the taking place of the incident, which clearly reveals that both groups have fought each other and inflicted injuries against each other. When once this Court has taken a decision that the persons who are involved in such an affray or injuring themselves, without respect to the law, they are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Further added to that, Court has to examine while granting or refusal bail whether after analyzing the FIR there are no allegations against the person or even if the name is there, he has been falsely implicated, if such a situation is not available on the face of the record, in my opinion, the petitioners are also not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In view of the above said reasons, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the trial Court for grant of bail under 6 Section 437 or 439 of Cr.P.C. In that eventuality, the concerned Court has to expeditiously take up the matter and dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE bvv