Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: mob attack in Sunil Kumar vs State By on 7 December, 2021Matching Fragments
3. Brief facts as projected by the prosecution, are as follows:
One Sri. H.B. Lakshmana Gowda - respondent No.2 in the present petition was driving a KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-40-F-261 near Apparel Park at Bashettihalli Industrial Area, Doddaballapur Road. By the act of the said driver and an allegation that he had killed one Pillapa due to the collusion with the KSRTC bus, the petitioners along with others generated a mob, damaged the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-1-FA-723 and has also damaged the bus by hurling stones to the bus and also burning them. Therefore, it was a mob attack on the KSRTC bus for an act of the driver of the bus, which had killed one Pillappa.
4. Based upon the said incident of such mob attack, the police Inspector by name one Sri. V.S. Shabarish registers a suo-motu complaint against several accused, which includes the petitioners. The complaint becomes an FIR in Crime No.299/2011 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 435, 504 read with Section 149 of the IPC. For the sake of convenience, the same would be referred to as 'First FIR'.
5. In the said FIR, the police have filed a charge sheet as well on 24.04.2012 in Crime No.299/2011. This is the charge sheet that is filed by the police against the accused for the aforesaid offences in terms of the first FIR that was registered. The charge sheet also narrates offences punishable of the very same provisions of law that are found in the FIR.
7. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet on 10.04.2012 for the same offences that are alleged in the FIR and the very same offences that are found in the first FIR and first charge sheet. Therefore, the case at hand is a case, where the incident of a mob attack on the busses of the KSRTC have lead to filing of two FIRS against the petitioners and the petitioners are accused in both the cases for the very same offences that have occurred on the very same day and between the very same period of time.
10. Learned HCGP would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2- complainant, but would submit that the allegations, incident are all the same.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
12. The afore-narrated facts not being in dispute need not be reiterated. The incident of mob attack on the buses of KSRTC is on a particular act of driver of the KSRTC, resulting in a death of a particular person in the limits of the village. This lead to fury among the people, who gathered and attacked the buses of KSRTC. This act of the mob attack resulted in an FIR being registered by the police, suo-motu for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 435, 504 read with Section 149 of the IPC. This was the First FIR. The police have investigated into the matter and filed the charge sheet and the trial is on the verge of conclusion in the said Crime No.299/2011. The driver of the another bus which was burnt also files a complaint on the very same day for the very same incident albeit a bus that was parked in the area. For the very same offences, the police have investigated and examined the very same documents and witnesses and have also filed the charge sheet in that case as well. It is that case that is called in question in the present petition and an interim order of stay is in operation.